[WikiEN-l] Don't push POV into the Wikipedia software and policies

Thu Feb 24 12:58:24 UTC 2005

John Lee said:
> There is no difference between the disambiguation of pages and this
> beyond their intention.

If I type in "head" my query is ambiguous.  Did I mean "head (anatomy)" or
"head (botany)"?  Or perhaps I was referring to "Head (movie)".  Or maybe
"head (hydraulics)"?  As it happens the overwhelming majority of
references to head are anatomical so "head" is a redirect to the most
likely meaning, which contains a link to "head (disambiguation)" for those
people who weren't looking for something other than that.
If I type in "George Bush", again my query is ambiguous.  At this time in
history there isn't really a front runner; the current President of the
USA and his father are both fairly likely to be the target of the query. 
The greater number of contemporary references to the son is offset by the
fact that many readers would have typed "George W. Bush" if they meant the
son.  So here we get equal disambiguation between four different people
who are known as George Bush.
I have to say that it's pretty hard to see what this simple navigational
aid, presented in response to an ambiguous query, has to do with filtering
of image content within an article.  The system simply does not know which
content is being requested, so it responds in a manner that tries to
inform and enable the query to be refined.
> Filtering images
> does not compromise NPOV because readers will still have the choice in
> their hands.

Possibly.  I think the jury is still out on this.  Even if we filter out
*all* images, it still seems to me that we're pandering to a strain of
opinion that, on non-encyclopedic grounds, holds some images unsuitable
for Wikipedia.  There seems to be a contradiction here.>
> If it's going to be as untasteful as the autofellatio image, that would
>  seem a reasonable objection to me. Especially considering it's hard to
>  find pornographic material online without getting a package of spyware
>  to come with it.

Is your claim about spyware true?  I have no reason to believe it to be
so.  Assuming it is, however, what implication does it have, in your
opinion, for the display of images, which contain no spyware?
> There are an awful lot of _historical facts_ it's
>>worth being damn pissed about.
>>
>>
> The difference is that publishing them won't give people ground to
> attack you.

Wikipedia will be attacked anyway if it keeps and displays this material.
Better to get rid of it than keep it but treat it as something to be
ashamed of.
> at
> least public opinion  will be sufficiently divided.

Is that what it's about?  If so, ditch the porn.