User:RM395/Course/Edit wars/Feces

Introduction

I am sure everyone is aware of what feces is but just in case you haven't heard the technical definition is "a waste product from an animal's digestive tract expelled through the anus during a process called defecation." The wikipedia page for feces discusses where the word feces came from along with how feces is created. The page then discusses odor, the uses of feces, and then some different types from a select group of animals. The article does make sure to point out pets since they were laws regarding cleaning up pet feces.

The Edit War

There are a couple of controversies as to what belongs on the feces page. First of all it is important to note that wikipedia is NOT censored. This means that wikipedia articles are allowed to show images of whatever is necessary in order to make the subject clearer to the reader. The main issue that has caused warring on this page is whether or not the page should include a picture of human feces. Arguments for:

• if someone has defecated and feared that their feces was abnormal then referencing this page would reassure them that their feces is normal
• images illustrate and add information they are not just a nice bonus
• the image should be inline because to add a link stigmatizes the subject matter
• if we eliminate photos because things vary then Wikipedia wouldn't have any photos

Arguments against:

• the image is considered by some to be offensive
• just because you search for something does not mean that pictures should be required
• human feces vary enormously and showing a picture as "normal" could lead people with slight deviation to believe that their feces is irregular

The discussion over feces has lead into some very heated debates. Below is one such heated debated where one anti-human-feces wikipedian is attacking the pro-human-feces wikipedian:

Don't tell me, let me guess. We are having a picture of faeces in case anyone doesn't know what it looks like? This is the argument used on other pages where in the name of "anti-censorship" other trolls have placed images they know will offend some readers. The argument is, to coin a phrase, shit. So is the one about "if you put faeces in the search box, you'll expect to see a picture of a turd". No, you would not. Unless you were acquainted with the kind of childish prick who delights in trying to create Pornopedia. Ultimately, any article that has the slightest possibility of carrying prurient material will do so, and WP will be entirely unuseable by much of its target readership. Is that really what we want?Grace Note 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace note, you have presented a straw man argument and then knocked it down. Not a useful contribution. Instead of 'letting you guess', how about you actually read the discussion and respond to the honest arguments actually presented? Eyeon 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, did you think you actually did present an argument? I answered the risible puffery you thought passed as one. I was guessing your next one and answered that one too. I also correctly characterised what kind of editor you are and posed a question that should bring a flush of shame to your face. Jeez, man, I call that a truly useful contribution. What more could you ask? Grace Note 04:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, I would ask that you respect Wikipedia convention and refrain from ad hominem attacks that do not advance the discussion, and only serve to distract readers from the valid arguments presented. Eyeon 04:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You present a valid argument and I'll do what you ask. Deal? Grace Note 08:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't cater to your vanity by restating arguments. Scroll up and read them. Eyeon 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon seems to be the user that is strongly supporting the addition of a image of human feces on the page. There are numerous people disagreeing with him, such as Grace Note above. To show support against Eyeon people are referencing other pages that he has been apart of when it comes to controversial images. They are claiming that he is just trying to cause trouble by bringing up controversial issues.

Many polls were also set up in an attempt to rectify this issue. I consistently see that people are claiming that nobody took the poll seriously or that the poll is invalid. The people that are saying this though are the people that are against having the image on the page. The people that are for having the image on the page are saying that they only think it is invalid because the vote did not go their way.

Conclusions

In my personal opinion I honestly do not see a problem with including a picture of human feces. The page includes pictures of many different animal feces, what is wrong with showing human feces? This was actually never really addressed in the arguments at all. People like Grace Note for some reason thought that adding a picture of feces to wikipedia would be turning it into "Pornopedia". I am not sure what a simple image of human feces has to do with pornography. Nobody explains how including a picture of human feces is offensive but including a picture of animal feces is not. Feces in general are a natural part of life yet for some reason, at least to these few people, it has become a MAJOR taboo. Let me relate this to a similar situation; Let's say you walk into a restaurant restroom and there just happens to be feces in one of the toilets. Are you going to complain to the manager saying that this is the most disgusting establishment you have been to? Or perhaps ask why they have pornographic references in a family place? No of course not. I think the average person would probably be grossed by it, but overall it would not be a big deal. Just because an image is gross or "inappropriate", which is the case with quite a few different biological things, to some people does not mean it doesn't belong on wikipedia. There is currently no picture of human feces on the feces page. --MartellRedViper (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)