Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Image:User.gif: unintended bias?

Image:User.gif: unintended bias?

The accused.

This is something of a proposal rather than policy, but I feel it belongs here more than at the proposals page given its overarching implications. The above image icon displayed by default at the top of every page in our default monobook skin appears to be white and male. This was raised by at Wikipedia:Help desk#user.gif. I think this is a a real problem which is self-evident enough that I shouldn't need to go into why it is a problem. This should be remedied sooner rather than later. What to put in its place? Well, that's a good question but it should certainly be generic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The globe, better the Wikipedia globe, is the easy and obvious. Strain the servers a bit, but a choice would be nice, like male or female or both (for the less well defined) symbols, in addition to the globe default, to ease folks out of the is (editor) I am addressing/talking smack about a he or a she dilemma? I'd like a stick figure: round head, neck and trunk, two arms, two legs. --Blechnic (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The icon looks pretty neutral to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it neutral when the average skin tone on the planet earth is not beige, and the average hair color is black, not light brown? Wouldn't neutral be closer to an average or a mean rather than an image of a minority? Or is it the Western world average that it neutrally represents? I'm not even sure that's a correct average or median for European hair color, or skin color. Certainly not for the modern Western world, when you add the Americas. --Blechnic (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be changed. It could be changed to an "average" (i.e. darker skin, darker hair, not very dark skin though.) I'm not sure if it's possible to have a generic kindof male kindof female figure. How about just a happy-face type of thing? (Would drive the dourer users crazy, though.) Or a stick figure, or just a triangle or something. Or have a number of images, some male, some female, different skin colours, and rotate them -- a different one each month or something as the default, with users able to select one if they prefer. Why have anything at all up there? I never even noticed it. Why not ::just have the links and no icon? No icon would be better than an icon that's seen as biassed. Although the artist of the above icon may have already been trying to portray some sort of average person, even if they didn't succeed adequately. I apologize to the artist (Marsve?) for any hard feelings this comment may cause. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The image's author is a Swedish man. It is possible he created a small icon that resembles him, which could explain why the figure resembles a northern European--that's what it is meant to be! I'm glad to know the artist is a Swede, this makes it seem likely there was no intention to choose such a non-neutral figure. But Wikipedia is international. I like the idea of a stick figure, a smiley face, a globe, no icon, rotating icons. (The last might be hard on the servers.) There are many choices that would give the impression that Wikipedia values the contributions of a variety of editors, even if most of the editors actually resemble that icon in more ways than they don't. --Blechnic (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The user can change their own icon if they wish. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#user.gif. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only valid when I'm logged in. Every other computer I use to sign in greets only the Northern European white males who will be logging in. I call it an "unwelcome mat." --Blechnic (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, does everything have to turn into a race thing? I don't think it has to be remedied 'sooner rather than later'. It wouldn't hurt to replace it (personally I find it a bit unattractive regardless), but it's not like it's causing some horrible harm to the community right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What does it do to people who are constantly excluded? They're not represented in the example humans sent to outer space, they're not part of the history of music, they're not the default human who edits Wikipedia (and they really are not). How dare they think it matters? Is that what your "everything has to turn into a race thing" is meant to address? Anyone who doesn't like things as they are is just making everything about race? That's not really an argument.

But there's not much I can argue. If you're not bothered by being represented by a white male when you're not one, that is your prerogative.

I am, however, bothered that the default value for an editor on Wikipedia is a white male. It's a presumptuous and unnecessary assumption. Who even decided that editors should be represented by a logo, that logo should be human, and it should represent a Northern European male?

Thanks for assuming what bothered me is just the race, not the race and gender, or the gender, by the way. --Blechnic (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, a race and gender thing. I think you missed the point of my post. And again, it's not so enormous a problem that the Wikipedia is in immediate, critical, life-threatening danger. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

break 1

Incidentally, why do you interpret this icon as male? There don't appear to be any identifiable gender features. —Random832 (contribs) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need an icon here? None of the other skins have it. It would be trivial to remove it. What is it good for? —Random832 (contribs) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To echo Random832 - why is the icon even there? It's not clickable; it doesn't lead anywhere. No one ays "the six links at the top of the page, to the right of the icon"; they just say "the six links at the top of the page". Wouldn't less be better in this case? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JB and Random; that icon doesn't do anything, and it doesn't even clarify the interface especially. I don't think anyone would notice if it was removed. If someone wants to keep an icon there, I might suggest a monochromatic one, like a plain light blue silhouette (to match the Monobook colors). Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is someone really saying that people are being excluded because of Image:User.gif this image? Who'd have thought 16*16 pixels could have such power. Perhaps wikipietan could be useful, but I'm not sure how that'd look at 16 pixels. To people suggesting a globe: You'd only have it showing the wrong part of the world, thus demonstrating your systemic bias and desire to crush two thirds of the world under your authoritarian jackbooted racist sexist pixels. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the most difficult aspects of fighting for civil rights when you are in a minority is the many ways that the majority find to exclude you, including how they make your feeling the exclusion one of the best ways to exclude you. As if anyone should ever feel they are excluded that every page on Wikipedia, all the Commons stuff, every user who doesn't opt out, all show the average, the desired, the best, the currently being recruited or whatever user as a blonde white male.

How dare I feel excluded that Wikipedia decided to splash a blonde white male over millions of web pages just because I'm not one? How dare I feel excluded to be reminded every time I log in on any computer whatsoever that somehow I've failed to be one of the group? Yes, please show surprise that anyone should be bothered by something so trivial as the decision to stamp all of Wikipedia with a blonde white male. Call me a Nazi, too. That's popular lately.

These tactics, the outrage that I should want leave the house on weekdays, intead of staying barefoot and in the kitchen, use a first class facility, to pick my seat at the counter, not be relegated to second best, unrepresented, all belong in another century, in another medium. This is the 21st century. Please don't call me a Nazi. It doesn't tell me or anyone else why Wikipedia should splash a blonde white male on millions of web pages. --Blechnic (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

blonde white male Whoa, hold the phone. Regardless of anything else, the figure QUITE CLEARLY has _brown_ hair. —Random832 (contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks blond to me too. It's a cartoon. Blond hair is often depicted as darker than actual blond colored hair, which would have to be yellow in a cartoon. Remember, cartoons are representative of something else. You want to get technical about how inaccurate this icon is to real life, well, no person actually looks like this thing, so that means it must not even represent a human being, right? Of course not. So let's dispense with the technical problems with comparing this to what some people associate this image with. Cause face it, if the face were black, and I mean even if it were unrealistically-for-any-skin-color complete black, the white people would, I'm fairly certain, be clamoring for a change. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:37, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Allowing yourself to be oppressed by a 16*16 gif is, frankly, a little bit pathetic. Would it make you feel better if you knew that the figure's designer is gay (or a wheelchair user), and wanted a gay(wheelchair using) person to appear on every page of WP?. To try to address your points: There's nothing to show the figure is male. Are you saying that all men have short hair, all women have long hair? It does not have blond hair. So, apart from it being 'white' (which is also doubtful, it could be asian) there's nothing to show the figure's sex, race, religion, sexual preference, age or (dis)ability. Ask for the image to be changed, but don't do so because 'weak' (your implication, not mine) minorities are being oppressed by a gif. Meanwhile, people will continue to work on actual discriminatory WP practices, such as inaccessible pages or systemic bias. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Image:User.gif was meant to be biased, but it certainly is meaningless. As stated in earlier comments, it does nothing and is the same regardless of any editor's sex or race. I agree with those who call for it to be deleted. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is meaningless. It surprises me that no one questioned it before for this reason, rather than for my reason. --Blechnic (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And I assume that if an admin were to tinker with the Monobook skin (CSS?), it would disappear. What would be the appropriate steps to make that happen? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

break 2

Those who don't understand the problem might want to make the assumption that they're biased, if they're white and male themselves. Being white and male myself, I recuse myself from making that call. But I do think that if a significant body of users has a problem with it, and it doesn't do anything anyway, just get rid of it. I don't think I ever even noticed it was there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:56, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it has to be some color, it is no big deal. It certainly does not look like it has a gender, the head is featureless, and it stops before where one might expect mammary organs. It doesn't even look that white, perhaps Filipino, who can tell? It is like 12 pixels. Even if it did imply a race, it does not mean there is a bias towards it. This is not an issue. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's an issue, because some people feel it is. Just 'cause it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it's not an issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:03, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

If we made everything an issue just because some people felt it was, we would never get anything done here. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little different from the average proposal. It's an issue of racial/gender sensitivity. So yes in those cases if a particular group of users feels there's an issue, then yeah there's an issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:07, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claimed it was meant to represent humanity, and it is a stretch to even see it as a white male. It is without detail, and it is much darker than my skin. It looks kind of orange, like no human I have ever heard of, like a muppet. I agree there is an issue here, but it is not with the icon. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's darker than your skin, therefore no one can think it represents a white person. I don't think anyone's taking you seriously anyway, so I'll just stop right here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It is orange and genderless. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't orange. It is gone. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was orange, for the record. Here's the color of the pixel at the center of its "face", devoid of context: ___. - looks pretty orange to me. But anyway, it wasn't serving any real purpose anyway; I don't miss it. No-one, though, explained why they think it is male, despite being asked several times. —Random832 (contribs) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That poor little icon got deleted, all because of the color of his/her skin... _(1 == 2)^Until 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

break 3

YAY! I got him/her back[1]! _(1 == 2)^Until 04:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would take quite an imagination to assign this figure a gender, and for what it's think this would be a particularly silly reason to change or remove the image. I don't think there's a consensus for this change developed here, and so I've reverted the removal for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there is no consensus for removal. As a human that lives on earth (and bleeds red like everyone else), its extremely offensive that anyone could be so narrow minded in attributing biggotry in an Icon as some sort of racial or gender bias.--Hu12 (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the image remotely offensive, but I do agree with many of the above users that it serves no apparent purpose and should be removed for that reason. —David Levy 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay, and I don't think there is a consensus to remove it. I also think that attributing bias to a genderless orange icon is just not accurate. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is seriously one of silliest debates I've ever encountered. It's a tiny figure with no features to distinguish sex/etc with a skin tone only found in cartoons and puppets. Reading something more into it is equivalent to asserting the "real" meaning of an ink blot. Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Look into the icon and tell me the first thing you see... _(1 == 2)^Until 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you what I don't see: a white male. It's baffling that people interpret it as such. –Pomte 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for those of you who don't know, white peoples' skin isn't actually "white" like the default page color of your web browser content window, unless they've got some disease or rare pigmentation condition. Even the palest white skin is peach-colored, and peach is, yes, light-orange. The color swatch posted by Random832 above is actually pretty close to what white skin color looks like. All the white folks, hold your hand up to it and compare if you don't believe me -- and remember I said "pretty close", not "exact". This is a cartoon picture, after all, and cartoon pictures can still imply a certain skin color without exactly matching the real-life version. Again I'm not sure why any of the white males participating in this conversation expect to be able to unbiasedly judge whether or not the group who is taking offense has any right to take offense. That's what's truly silly and immature, if you ask me. On another note, I love the mugshot posted, and the caption -- that's quite priceless :) Equazcion •✗/C • 09:29, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

break four

Let's try to get some consensus.

1. Does the icon serve any purpose but decoration?
2. Do some people feel that the icon is discriminatory?
3. Would another icon serve equally well in that place?

Dan Beale-Cocks 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the icon serves no purpose but decoration. I don't think it's discriminatory; there's nothing to show if the icon is gay, disabled, transgendered, Jewish, etc etc. Another icon would be fine in it's place. Don't put a globe in, because that'll be showing America, and giving undue bias. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess !votes go here, because everyone loves !voting. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

God no. No votes please. Really not necessary for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've struck my !votes suggestion. I think it's useful to split the talk into "do we want that icon, or another icon" and "why don't we like that icon". Dan Beale-Cocks 12:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

K, #1 is already established -- the icon does nothing and no one is arguing about that. #2 is also known -- some people do find it discriminatory. Just how many people have a problem with it is not known, but we wouldn't know that unless we held a watchlist-advertised poll, and we're not doing that. #3 -- i'm not sure that matters. Here's my proposed solution though: eliminate the icon by default, and offer css customizations via preferences->gadgets to implement the user's choice of icon, providing some small range of choices. Say, four choices, dark/light-skinned male/female. Either that or eliminate the icon completely. It does nothing anyway, as almost everyone here has pointed out. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:45, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I found a picture of the person that I think was the model: right here. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fairly certain that it was the fellow with the rubber duck. —David Levy 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All joking aside, saying something is racially insensitive because it is white is basically a form a racial discrimination. Seriously, you are upset because you don't like its skin color, well, it is just a skin color we all have one, this one is orange. Being white is not the same as being racially bias thank you. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if it were changed to a black icon then? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:45, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? But why not purple? It seems to make more sense considering it is orange now. Frankly I think all this concern of the skin color of a cartoon is overemphasizing race entirely. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The color in the icon is the standard color used to represent white skin in cartoon form. And see my comment above on the "specific color used here" issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can we change the icon to represent a black woman, and leave it that way for about a week? Care to guess how many people will complain then? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I'd be as happy for the icon to be a "black woman" (though how you show it's a woman in 16 pixels is beyond me) as I am for it to be a "white man". Your point that some people would complain it well made, and I accept it. But, I'd say that the people who complain about it being a black woman are probably wingnuts. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you decided to make a real skin color and a gender then you would create the very problem you seek to avoid, we have a genderless image with a skin color only cartoons and muppets have. I like black women as much as the next guy, but I really don't see the point of the suggested change. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If some people are that deeply concerned about bias, I'd recommend keeping eyes on race and intelligence and other places periodically trolled by racists, instead of arguing about a nondescript icon that's part of the standard MediaWiki install. If the icon is so objectionable that it cannot be ignored, people could always get in contact with the MediaWiki project and work out a solution with the developers. Vassyana (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

White skin in cartoon form? It is orange man. And as I said, even if it was white, that does not mean it is racially insensitive. It is not a plaque for a spacecraft meant to represent humanity, it is just a cartoon. I resent the idea that white = racially biased. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ugly, so I have removed it from my view. I don't think it is intended to imply any specific human features -- whether that be race, skin colour, hair colour, sex, height or taste in chocolate biscuits. It's just a human figure -- it doesn't have to encompass every human possibility to be a valid icon for humanity. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok my 2 cents:

1. Does the icon serve any purpose but decoration? -- Yes, it shows the odd word "Pengo" that appears at the top of the screen is a username.
2. Do some people feel that the icon is discriminatory? -- I'd use the terms "gender exclusive" and "race exclusive". Not surprising this would annoy people, or at least make them feel subtly excluded.
3. Would another icon serve equally well in that place? -- Yes. Why not change it if makes people who do not identify with an icon of a white-skinned-short-haired-human uncomfortable, however outlandish the reasons seem to you, or however well you can justify having the icon. Why not pick something "neutral"? I notice the default user icon in Ubuntu, for instance, is grey and has no hair. Gnome alternative: (this is from a screenshot -- can someone find the original source for this?)

—Pengo 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I say no. Up to now, I had never heard a single comment made about the poor thing; why should we change it when it barely bothers anyone? I could be mistaken, but out of the hundreds of thousands who have edited here, it could as well be the first vote of no confidence. I'd say that the relatively few people who mind are the ones who should change it in their personal settings (and it could be deleted for IPs if we really don't want to hurt their feelings). Besides, I don't think the above alternative really matches with the rest of the Wikipedia theme, which isn't really that "modern". In my opinion, the accused should either be executed or be left alone, although I do believe that, useless as it may seem, it serves as a nice anchor for the top-of-the-page links, more or less in the way Pengo has noted (although I don't agree with his phrasing, as only Pengo will be seeing "Pengo", so he doesn't need to be told what his strange choice of a username is).

PS: He called it strange; I find Pengo a perfectly normal word and use it all the time. :-D

PPS: There is another solution: replace the whole thing with a ducal coronet. That would show the true extent of my influence in this place—for once. (evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring everything else

Let's forget about race, gender, or whatever for a minute. The icon simply doesn't go with the rest of monobook. It's the only thing that is any color other than blue. What does everyone think of this icon? —Random832 (contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a white, balding male! You're discriminating against non-albinos, Rogaine-users, and the differently-gendered! --Carnildo (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire point of contention is truly absurd. A racially biased 12 pixel icon? Oh dear! Call Al Sharpton! I prefer there to be some form of an icon, even if it may not serve a purpose. The one suggested by Random832 is fine, but I prefer the original. - auburnpilot talk 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it should be removed for stylistic purposes, then perhaps MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css would be the place to seek consensus. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but it's very ugly. :) how about this instead? —Pengo 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found the original image of the above and uploaded it: I think it fits well. —Pengo 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This icon seems to be the most stylistically similar to the overall monobook look. Gwguffey (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...?

You're kidding right? Please tell me this is early April Fool's and we're not honestly discussing a bias due to the icon shown next to our usernames... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You should all be banned for over-discussion of pointless minutiae. John Reaves 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a dirty limerick on our talk pages instead? We do need a lesson taught, but not banning! I would miss the orange person! _(1 == 2)^Until 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people haven't even noticed it, but I bet they will feel the change if it is gone.

Now, while the honourable editors cannot even agree on the icon's colour, I have managed to discover, after long and laborious research, the nationality of the accused. Look at its clothes and you will certainly agree with me: it is clear as day that it comes from Ireland, and therefore this whole story is a result of the machinations of the Irish admin cabal. I suggest that we should all grab our torches and pitchforks and head straight to their secret headquarters. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the Munchkins from The Wizard of Oz are the culprates behind the Icon design. hmmm..--Hu12 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this what we do instead of writing an encyclopedia? No wonder the media is already reporting how the community is increasingly spending more time on petty bickering and less on increasing knowledge. Duh! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, can we just let this go. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares

Tracing it back, it was added by Gabriel Wicke in rev:2814. However, it was in use before that (see diff) from his website at http://www.aulinx.de/user.gif (dated January 2004) ... going back further, it seems to have come from (been purloined from) plone: http://plone.org/user.gif (but the archive.org results are inconclusive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://plone.org/user.gif ). --Splarka (rant) 12:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup: The oldest plone version can be seen here in their trac, dated 09/15/03 03:22:09. --Splarka (rant) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is retarded

What the hell is wrong with you guys? It's a tiny little gif! Who cares what it's skin color is!?

If you find yourself horribly offended by such a thing, you really need to grow some thicker skin. Jtrainor (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion is biologically feasible, Jtrainor, although nothing should surprise us with modern science... :-D Waltham, The Duke of 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse I can't believe people are still discussing this. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse although I'm not a huge fan of the adjective used to describe the thread. It's a little androgynous orange human. At least in IE. Hard to care about this one. Darkspots (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My name is _(1 == 2)^Until and I endorse this judgmental statement about this thread. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - (prepares to make the most racist comment on Wikipedia) I'm white and proud of it.--WaltCip (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Though I'm not sure the thread itself is mentally handicapped, there remains the question of the people posting to it. Personally, I think that getting upset over this is rather silly because (a) the icon is ambiguous enough to be interpreted as multiple ethnicities + both genders, and (b) it is a 16x16 gif. Who cares? I'm not in the "it's pointless" boat, however; there's something I like about having a little icon up there, even if it serves no strictly functional purpose (see my other suggestion :P). Whatever happened to keeping things for aesthetics? — Bob • (talk) • 10:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a straw poll

This is the first time I've ventured into this discussion, and I think that only some sort of straw poll discussion at this point would make it clearer where our consensus lies. So I'm making subsections that we can discuss under. I hope this type of thing is acceptable to do here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the topic has grown stale, I suggest we do not do a poll. _(1 == 2)^Until 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows when the issue is going to come up again? I propose we take care of this now, to be honest. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there is no holding back the tide. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have preferred it if we had first held a poll about holding this poll... But I will not object. Waltham, The Duke of 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But what if not everyone wanted to hold a poll about whether or not to hold a poll? We should have polled that. — Bob • (talk) • 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, Bob, that would be rather ridiculous, don't you think? (evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that not why we're here? — Bob • (talk) • 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's why you are here. (very evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support removal

Support complete removal of the image from the monobook skin

1. It just makes the user interface more complex. Who needs that? The icon serves no useful purpose whatsoever. (The only argument made to date is that it tells a logged in editor that the username link to its right is a username; but the editor already knows that - it's his/her username, after all). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
   1. How does a tiny icon make anything more complex? I fail to see this side of the argument. I think an icon up there looks nice, even if it were to change. Our job isn't to strip Wikipedia of everything that doesn't have a strict functional purpose; I doubt any editor has gotten confused about the icon, or scared off by it. I personally think sites should use more such icons — they add a visual cue to compliment text (we could even go so far as to pull in the "two brain hemispheres" argument, whereby the left brain's interpretation of text would be complimented by the right brain's interpretation of images, thus enhancing one's visual recognition). Facebook's icons, to me, do their job quite well. — Bob • (talk) • 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. In all seriousness, I hate having any icon at all in my user links, and I would love to see it go. It just looks childish and unprofessional, and so would any replacement. That doesn't mean that this whole debate isn't fatuous; it is, and it's all the more fatuous for the lack of general recognition that just removing the icon would be an improvement in and of itself. Please just kill it. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support keep

Keep the image as it is

1. Mark 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. It is orange and has no gender attributes. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It's fine. It actually serves more of a purpose than saying "this is your username to the right"; it also serves as a way of visually locating the user portlet among all the clutter at the top of a screen. I will also contest the idea that it is a white male. It is Muppet-colored and the hair actually looks slightly feminine to me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Really, the world has gone mad. Until is correct IMO, it's orange, which doesn't really match any ethnicity, and it doesn't look in any way gender-specific. I really despair... SamBC(talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Don't change the image, but please ban 2 week discussions on the racial bias of tiny icons that cannot possibly be identified as one race or another. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Good God, KEEP. This is clearly the most asinine Wikipedia discussion I've ever encountered.--WaltCip (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. It is mostly useless, but I have grown quite fond of it for some strange reason. Plus, this is an opportunity to vote contrary to Mr Broughton's preferences. :-p Waltham, The Duke of 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
8. If s.o. doesn't like it they should not yap about it unless they can come up with something better. I hadn't even noticed it before. What's next philosophical deliberation on who was first the "chicken and the egg". There are many worthwhile gender and race issues (equal wages, education etc.) Icons ain't one. Lisa4edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Keep - the image serves as a subtle visual cue that the links on that line relate to a person (specifically you, as your name appears right next to it) and not to the current article or Wikipedia (column under globe). As to racial bias: no offense to brown-haired, burnt-umber-coloured, green-shirted peoples the world over, but that figure is nondescript - no gender characteristics, no eyes, no mouth, and the gradient used on the skin area pretty much covers everyone from albino to deepest dark (If this was Memory Alpha, I would only suggest we change the shirt color to red.) As pointed out below, individual who are offended can change the link... if you must, make the icon a link to a protected WP: page that describes what it is and how you can change it with a stylesheet (even provide a few alternatives). --Marcinjeske (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Change the image entirely

Change the image to represent a race and gender neutral human icon, or change it to a completely different icon (perhaps Earth, or the Wikimedia logo)

1. Change to to better match monobook style. - Gwguffey (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't see whose complaint it solves to make the icon whiter, but this would be my second choice. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I like having a little icon up there. Right now my monobook.css has it as a Nietzschecon! How cool would that be to have on every wiki?! — Bob • (talk) • 10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Individually customizable

Allow users to set their own icon from their own images, OR allow users to choose an icon from a set that fits their racial and gender profile

1. If this satisfies those few complainers, I'm all for it...~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support this, but it doesn't have to be limited to humans. while we're here, has anyone seen the image on the wp:bio template? Dan Beale-Cocks 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this would be a waste of developer time. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do an edit like this to your monobook.css and change the image path to another image. No need to involve devs, people can do it themselves. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New neutral version

Image:Papasmurf2.jpg Nobody can get offended by this one --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like Stan Jones in a Santa hat. --Kbdank71 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, it looks like we are supporting certain gang colors, which is biased against the other gangs. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, non-free images cannot be used outside of articlespace XD ViperSnake151 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)