Latest comment: 12 years ago59 comments15 people in discussion
This RFC has generated more than 417,388 bytes of discussion. Can an administrator really expected to read through everything, then determine what the "consensus" is, other than by reference to their own opinion of how each argument happens to strike them? The "consensus, not a vote" model can work in article content RFCs and AFDs because they are normally much smaller, and are guided by a direct application of content policies. Here, we're trying to determine what the policy should be; to the extent "not censored" is being used to override NPOV as it stands, the latter policy may thereby be considered modified. So, an "admin applying policy" is unworkable. This situation is analogous to arbcom elections, which are explicitly votes, and RFAs, which are in practice. Much as I would like the closing admin to determine that "not censored" cannot be used contrary to NPOV, and that it undermines Wikipedia's academic credibility, I accept that that view may not carry the day. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
How is "not censored" being used to override "NPOV"? The arguements made by myself and others opposing the changes proposed by Ludwigs2 et al are that they would introduce POV and bias where none currently exists. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this behavior does happen. Usually, it's a new editor complaining about an image that is not, strictly speaking, DUE for the given use in an article. The person doesn't usually have the sophistication to say "Hey, this is an NPOV violation, because most of the sources don't take this approach with their images"; they usually try to argue from common-sense expectations of readers, as in "This odd approach is going to needlessly offend people".
And the equally unsophisticated, and equally common, response amounts to "See NOTCENSORED and shut up already, because only people I hold in contempt for being {religious|squeamish|prudish} would complain about this".
That's a behavioural and educational problem that will not be at all altered by the proposed changes to the policy, if anything it will make the problem worse, e.g. through arguments about why $source does or does not use an image/media of a given type, whether $group's sensibilites are ok to ignore, whether $other_group should have a say, etc, etc. (see all the discussion on this point above). Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That's ridiculous - this problem has been going on for years, and the worst abusers of NOTCENSORED are all highly experienced regulars. If this were going to be resolved by 'behavioral' or 'educational' methods it would be resolved already, but in fact policy is being used to enforce ignorant attitudes and poor behavior. So policy needs to change. --Ludwigs204:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem though is that there actually is no problem. You have made many, many proposals that have been rejected. Someday you just might have to consider the possibility that we're right, and you kinda...aren't. Tarc (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is clear you see no problem. I, for one, see a problem. I disagree with your view that "When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern." I, and many others here, believe it's an important second order concern after educational merit, bearing in mind that educational merit may be overwhelmed and negated by extremely disaffecting content.
MASEM's proposal offers a formula that will deal with this legitimate concern while avoiding the literally interminable Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Pregnancy time sinks. It will have the opposite effect to that predicted by Thryduulf, and vastly reduce the amount of talk page conflict over image use. We are perfectly capable of assessing whether RSs usually lead an article about Saudi Arabia with an image of a woman's naked face, whether they usually lead discussions of pregnancy with a picture of a naked woman, illustrate discussions of suicide with pictures of suicide, illustrate a four or five page article about Muhammad with six figurative depictions of the man, etc, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, agree with the above editor that "there actually is no problem" is probably an insufficiently nuanced view of the matter. Also not sure that "we're right" is an especially useful construct here. As it's proposing rather than interpreting policy, I don't see a right/wrong dichotomy as particularly helpful. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you haven't really been paying attention to the last month or so of tendentious proposals from this same handful of editors, all looking for whatever crack can be exposed to get rid of images they find objectionable personally...or images that outside groups find objectionable, so they argue on their behalf. "Not censored" is being used quite appropriately to protect the project and its articles from unnecessary, busybody meddling. Tarc (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it shows neglect of Ludwigs2's edits over the last several years. He seems completely unable to accept that there are points of view that are irrelevant to a secular encyclopedia's editorial policies, and religious points of view are the most easily recognized members of that class. People that believe in haunted microphones, quack medicine, and similar things are there as well, but not as easily classified. Offensiveness is one thing, but any policy that attempts to address it is going to wind up having to deal with the issue of people taking offense over issues that we cannot take notice of.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Images are unfortunately not a simple matter of black and white. In deciding on the appropriateness of images, we have to go by what is in reliable secondary sources, without trying to make meta-commentaries on those sources, either individually or as a whole. Indeed sometimes the most appropriate sources need not exist in profusion, even for topics like the life of Muhammad. Objections to images, where there is a degree of ambiguity, should in the final resort be left as a personal choice. That will presumably/hopfully be provided by the individual settings for the image filter. Having looked at how the filter will probably function, my understanding is that explicit on-screen warnings would appear for articles where potential problems have been identified. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci, as has been said many times previously (though it's probably hard to find in the excess of verbiage), 'personal choice' is not a panacea. In the real world, people are not allowed to walk around nude in public on the grounds that other people have the 'personal choice' not to look. People are not allowed to shoot at each other because other people have a 'personal choice' to buy handguns of their own. Every society in the world naturally restricts the rights of individuals in small ways so that other people in the community don't have to go out of their way to avoid whatever silly thing the individual takes it into his head to do. Don't get me wrong, I admire the Wikipedia principles about liberty, but liberty taken to irrational extremes (like anything else taken to extremes) becomes seriously retarded. The argument you're making boils down to "Wikipedia can be as stupidly arrogant as editors can make it be, because if our readers don't like it they can stop looking," which simply sucks the marrow out of NPOV. That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. --Ludwigs206:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) When I wrote "not black and white", I was referring to various nuanced discussions on images which Ludwigs2 might have missed. From what I understand, for the Muhammad images, consensus is that after looking at sources, we have agreed on a few images, with improvement of content to accompany them. (This applies to images of the Night Journey and possibly the "Ship of Faith".) Even once editors on an individual article have decided amongst themselves on appropriate images, the image filter would nevertheless still enable individual wikipedians to change the settings to mask even those images; I believe that they could also mask all images. If Ludwigs2 is now objecting to the image filter, that is another issue. There were a very large number of responses across all the wikipedias in different languages to the questionnaire which Risker helped analyse. It is a very similar idea to "safe search" on google images. It obviously is an important element in the discussion of images, whether we like it or not. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci: I am not objecting to the image filter; I am saying that the presence of the image filter is not an excuse for indulging in poor judgement. Just because people can choose not to look at images does not mean that that we should go out of our way to include imagery that they don't want or need to see.
with respect to the other, I actually don't object to the compromise that you and Jayen have been working out in Muhammad talk. I haven't looked at it really closely - I said I'd stay off the page for a while - but as far as I can tell on a cursory examination it is fairly close to what I was asking for in the first place, before the whole discussion spun out into the twilight zone. So as far as that goes: good job, well, done, thank you, and I only wish you could have shown up to do it weeks ago and saved me a whole lot of headaches. One of these days (or so I keep hoping) people will actually listen to what I'm asking for before they decide I'm the spawn of Satan. Faint hope, I know, but I'm an optimist.
P.s. it is OK to speak directly to me, you know; responding to my post by speaking about me in the third person in unsubtle. --Ludwigs208:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The third person was used because the comment was originally placed beneath Anthonyhcole's comment, but he moved and reformatted it without asking me. Presumably you could have checked that yourself. Please be more careful what you write in future. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that my reformatting caused confusion. I was trying to keep threads on a similar idea together. Please feel free, both of you, to revert me if you see me making a mistake like that again. I think you have a good point, Mathsci. Once the filter is in place, provided the preference options are set intelligently, most of the problems with controversial content will be resolved. In the meantime though, we have a problem. Some content is so offensive to some readers that they will avoid Wikipedia articles because of it. For the time being, when removal of that content is not significantly going to impact the educational value of an article, would you support its removal? Do you acknowledge that there are images on Wikipedia that add nothing significant to the readers' understanding and yet are offensive to a significant number of our readers?
It's not a problem with what you did: Mathsci simply views everything I do in a jaundiced light. old history; no help for it until he decides to get over it. Assuming he ever does.
I disagree with what you said about the image filter: the point is to make appropriate articles, not to make inappropriate articles that the reader can filter into appropriateness (if s/he can figure out how). --Ludwigs216:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think we disagree on that point. Presently, I'm of the view that an intelligent image filter will free up image use enormously. Once a decent filter is in place, I'll feel a lot better about including a "drunken Muhammad" image in Muhammad#Western reception. Though that section deserves such an image, at the moment I feel that, on balance, it would be better not to put it there and alienate a bunch of readers. If Muslims have the option to set "Muslim friendly" on their preferences, no problem. The same applies to Pregnancy and even, yes, Goatse - assuming, of course, the options on the image filter are set intelligently. I favour having the filter default to ultra-conservative (all filters on), by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And I suppose by this same logic that White Supremacists could add all sorts of appropriate anti-semitic imagery to articles on Judaism because people have the option to set "Jewish Friendly" in their preferences? This is the problem with the image filter: it creates a de facto 'separate but equal' standard, and as we all know 'separate but equal' is rarely separate and never equal. As I said, I don't object to the Image Filter concept - which is a good thing - but it has to be used in the context of ethical consideration. Using a technological solution to mask an ongoing social/ethical concern is just going to blow up in our faces, sooner or later. --Ludwigs217:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
First, let me be clear. I'm assuming an intelligent filter, and from what Jayen's just said in the below thread, I'm not sure that's what we're getting. But, assuming it's the kind of thing that a Muslim can click once and be confident she won't see breasts, dicks, bottoms or Muhammad, or a typical Westerner can click and be confident she won't see Goetse, I believe it will free us to apply NPOV without worrying about alienating large groups of readers. NPOV would presumably prevent white supremacists from adding antisemitic images to most articles, filter or no filter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the RfC, Alessandra, this present discussion on MASEM's proposal is clarifying many issues for me, and I hope it's valuable for others too. I think it would be a mistake to rush this into a widely advertised community RfC. Once it's clear no new arguments are being put forward here by the same handful of editors for and against, then I'd like to see proponents and opponents of the change compose a brief (paragraph or two) statement of the case for and another of the case against, and lead the new RfC with those statements (as proposed here by AerobicFox). Ludwigs2 started an RfC on a different but related question. I'd prefer to see that closed for now, so attention can be focused on MASEM's proposal, which I think has a better likelihood of passing.
I'd prefer to take this wording to the community, though:
In considering the use of controversial images, Wikipedia editors should conform to the approach generally taken by reliable sources on the topic, including the option of using no illustration. If reliable sources generally avoid the use of controversial images, while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. In cases where there is a dispute regarding the usual approach of sources, and no consensus can be reached, it is often better to use the less controversial approach to resolve the conflict.
Do you mean the way that no new arguments have been made by the proponents despite very similar proposals being rejected time and time again for at least as long as I've been here (coming up 7 years)? Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And once again I say that the article isn't unappropriate and is pretty consistent with almost every other article here. I for one am always going to oppose any sort of attempt at self censorship but if we want to get the ball rolling on yet another rehash of the same thing I will happily throw my mark on here once it begins. People self censor all the time (if you don't like porn don't type porn into a search engine for example) but only here are we insisting that the users do not. I find that unacceptable, since under the whole "if you want to go nude people can look away" also applies for the internet. Nobody is forced to come to an article at any point, and if it truely upsets them they could actually read the top area where it goes step by step on how to stop it. Instead we see people immediately jump to the talk section insisting we take down pictures, when we have already provided tools that themselves are an exception to normal policy. To sum it up someones distaste over something does not trump my want to learn about it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Tivanir2: This is an encyclopedia - the argument that "Nobody is forced to come to an article at any point" totally defeats the purpose of having a free, accessible encyclopedia. You're trying to turn the project into an 'encyclopedia for people willing to put up with our bad editorial choices', and that's just ridiculous. --Ludwigs217:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Conversely, you want to treating every visitor to the project like a baby that must be protected from potential offense. It isn't our job to babysit, to coddle, or to shield people's eyes from things. We decide how to present material to the reader. If it is something they do not wish to see, then the choice of what to do from that point is in THEIR hands. Not ours. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
People are offended in the real world. Can we please accept that? Especially when the material they are being shown isn't obviously going to be there - there is a difference between showing a naked penis at penis and showing a naked woman at pregnancy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Being offended is not a reasonable concern to weigh. If a naked girl at pregnancy is inappropriate and you would like it removed, then you will have to come up with a reason OTHER THAN "it offends people". You may have a good argument to make for that image removal, but you're going about it in a bad and ultimately dead-ending way. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)Conversely, Tarc, you are treating every reader as thought they are coarse-minded bulldogs just like you and me. It isn't our job to expose people to things that are not necessary to the article just to 'toughen them up'; this is not the wikipedia encyclopedic bootcamp, you know, and we're neither meant nor qualified to be pseudo-intellectual drill sergeants. --Ludwigs218:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't show irrelevant images though, when was the last time you saw an anus at cucumber or whatever it is the argument you keep inserting up above. Your concern has been primarily for shielding the eyes of people who don't want to see stuff at the expense of allowing those that do to be able to see such content.AerobicFox (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Except that we do. Because we show an unnecessary nude at Pregnancy.
Photos are needed at both, as is the nude woman. We really don't need to go back to the days of ridiculous prudishness when people hoping to get an idea of what these things looked like had to look at nude Greek statues. An illustration just does not cut it, for example my brother was circumcised, but our parents never told either of us that(I had no idea, we are not Jewish or anything), and he had no idea whether he was circumcised or not, so he went to our article to find pictures to compare it to. Many other people need resources like these, woman want to know how their body will change when they get pregnant, people want to find out what these parts look like, etc. Besides that my anatomy/physiology textbooks books are far more upfront with their images then our images here..AerobicFox (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No I never said people should put up with bad editing. I said one groups wants do not trump another when it comes to offense. Bad editing would be if the community didn't cite things, provided incoherent information and posted pictures that had nothing to do with the subject. Since the wikipedia community tends not to do any of that I would say the community is working towards the best articles it can keeping in mind a world wide audience without catering to any group for any reason. I have pointed this out numerous times as an example and doubtlessly will do so again, if we were trying to make articles terrible or offensive we could with very little trouble. Nothing in this entire project can claim that the majority of humanity is against an image, however groups for their own purposes might wish certain ones to be removed. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That sort of specific image discussion is beyond the scope of this board, the "need" of an image is something to discuss at the article's talk page. The only point about it that relates to this discussion is that the argument "some are offended by it" is not a valid reason in itself to remove. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
AerobicFox: I've heard dozens of people repeat the phrase "these images are needed"; at Penis it makes sense, at pregnancy it doesn't. we do not need to show a nude image in the lead there, and no one has ever made a credible argument that we do need to. What we have is a bunch of editors who want to show a nude image in the lead (for various reasons), and while I don't object to that in principle it's anti-encyclopedic to put the wishes of editors ahead of the preferences of readers. As I keep saying over and over: there's no problem violating social norms where we have a valid encyclopedic reason to do so, but there is no sense in violating social norms for paltry reasons. This is not ridiculous prudishness (though I can see that it makes you feel better to think of it that way); this is common courtesy. --Ludwigs220:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really. AerobicFox has asserted that "we don't show irrelevant images" I'm asking for a justification for a particular image to counter his point. If he can't justify it then he should retract or modify his original statement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Or I could just repost my argument since you have yet to respond to it "woman want to know how their body will change when they get pregnant," and an illustration will not do this. The very fact that you are arguing that a nude pregnant woman is irrelevant to the pregnancy article is more evidence of irrational prudishness than it is irrationally offensive. Nude figures are used constantly to illustrate medical concepts, especially with pregnancy, an illustration just doesn't compare to a photo in being able to convey things.AerobicFox (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A clothed image, or ideally a series of clothed images, of someone wearing tight clothing would do a perfectly acceptable job of covering how the body changes. Unfortunately in Western, especially American, culture nudity is overly sexualised (and if we are actually being fair, I believe Chinese, Indian, South-East Asian and Arabic culture). There is nothing I can do about that. Most of those cultures have little issue with someone wearing tight clothing.
You may not like the fact that people are generally prudish about nudity, but that's the world we live in, for better or for worse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Three questions. What if the nipples bulged out visibly through the tight clothing so that their clear shape could be seen? What on earth does the title of this subsection mean? Exactly how will anybody be harmed in the slightest by seeing the naked image? HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well the Americans got very offended about seeing a nipple for around a second in 2004. And I'm sure finding an image of a women wearing tight clothing without visible nipples should be possible.
While they may not technically be "harmed" by seeing a nipple, you can make the same argument about being called an idiot, something that people don't do if they are being civil. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The nude at Pregnancy illustrates a pregnant woman. It's definitely relevant. Is it relevant enough to justify its presence in the article, given the offense and embarrassment it will cause many of our readers? I know what some answers will be:
Tarc: "When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern," "Simply 'being offensive', an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article" and "Offense is simply not a concern" [1][2][3]
Bus stop: "Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space." "In the final analysis it doesn't matter if you or I or someone else finds an image "offensive" or not. "Offensive" is virtually meaningless in the context of Wikipedia." [4][5]
Nomoskedasticity: "I think it is right that Wikipedia would not be swayed by such feelings (offense) even if the material is incidental." and "when someone says "good taste" they usually mean "my taste", because there isn't anything else for it to mean." [6][7]
Chzz: "it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive'" [8]
HiLo48's "We may not always NEED nudes, but it is also wrong to opposes a picture simply BECAUSE it is nude." [9]
Anthonyhcole—if you are objecting to the nude photo at Pregnancy on the grounds that it is "insensitive" then the appropriate response to that is that "Wikipedia is not censored". I'm not trying to be funny. There are other objections that can be raised to the photo. There are suggestions that can be made for alternative imagery, along with arguments for why you feel alternative imagery might be preferable. There are even arguments that could be formulated in support of no imagery at all. Why are you insisting on pursuing the one argument that opposes our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED? If we were to accept arguments containing the vagaries of personal taste wouldn't we be compromising our aim to clearly convey information? For instance anybody can claim to be "offended" by just about anything. I am not saying you are doing that. But shouldn't arguments concerning imagery be based on those more objectively discussed factors? Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting before someone says "you can't be offended by everything"
User:OttawaAC"It's arguable whether photos are necessary or even useful or helpful in Wikipedia articles."[10] "Why should we support such parental neglect of children? Should we host other similar pictures - kids playing in traffic, running with knives, drinking underage, and the rest too?"""Why do you want images of animals having sex? This is no way to claim it is educational but there are many justifications for it that are directly against WMF policy and the rest."[11]
There are many users that try to censor things totally inappropriately under the pretense of offensiveness and we don't need to see a massively disruptive image purge/edit war going on here like we did at Commons.AerobicFox (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And that's the point, WP:NOTCENSORED means we come across like we are running a "frat boy encyclopaedia" and doesn't allow us to make sensible value judgements which allow our material to be used by the widest possible audience due to the lack of empathy shown by some of our members on a tiny percentage of our articles towards the outside world.
The sad thing is that people, and people in authority, will stop personally using, or will prevent large numbers of others from using Wikipedia at all just so that you guys can have your nude image in pregnancy which delivers an extremely small quantity of value to the project.
Personally as a non-muslim I'm not personally offended by images of Muhammad, or by nipples in pregnancy, but by expressing empathy towards my fellow man I understand that many people are offended by it.
Even though I'm sure academic works do include nude images from time to time, as required I don't believe an academic work doing a general overview of pregnancy would include a nude image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
@AerobicFox, which is why we need to follow reliable sources. If I watch a nature program on the BBC or on the discovery channel it may well include animals having sex. If I watch a program on the BBC about underage drinking I'm going to see images of people drinking underage, however you don't need to show a 12 year old drinking a bottle of vodka on alcohol to illustrate the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Because too many editors here can't tell when the degree of offense caused by an image outweighs its educational merit, causing other editors to spend large amounts of time dragging Goetse and tits and depictions of suicide off articles that anyone with an ounce of social sensitivity or social responsibility would immediately recognise as grossly inappropriate. By copying what reliable sources do we rely on the good taste of their editors, and avoid the incessant puerile squabble, reminiscent of a harassed parent constantly having to shove their unsocialised child's penis back into their trousers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is there always a frat boy comparison? Per WP:Offensive material we do not include gratuitously offensive images, because we do not need to add shock value. Even for the pregnancy page the nude can be claimed as better because it shows changes, however if it is really a problem you could always look for something better. Say a 3 panel image of a person at 3 months, 6 months and right before birth (about the 9 month mark) though keep in mind they should all show the same individual. This would allow you to point out changes without needing a nude picture since you can see the changes even under clothes. But that point goes to you are introducing a change that makes the project better not censoring. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a frat boy comparison because that's how the project is actually operating. Only a tiny minority, if any, of our reliable sources would use a nude image in this case.
And while a series of images would of course be better than a single image, by the same argument that judges a nude image to be appropriate a series of nude images would be even better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say good luck to anyone trying to find nude images of the same model for 3 6 and 9 months. If a person poses for nude art while pregnant it tends to be once. And I would challenge the ascertation that we are operating like that, since again while individuals may want to keep something because they view removing it as censorship they should still respond to the idea of improving the article even if the picture is moved or removed. If you can find a good alternative that suits it better I am sure more people would rally to the cause then people that see an "oh my god nipples!" post. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that plenty of other people think the nipples are inappropriate in this situation, most people don't get involved in discussions like this - its only a "hard core" who ever do. If I went down the pub and asked people whether they thought a nude image as the lead image of pregnancy was appropriate I think we wouldn't have people seriously defending such a position.
Besides if it was actually appropriate why would our reliable sources not use a similar image? And if there was some serious value for it why has no-one been able to come up with a serious justification for the value offered by the nude image at all? Given the lack of justification for such an image I don't believe it offers any value at all over a clothed image.
With a series of images the only way you are going to get such a series of images is to get someones girlfriend/wife to pose while pregnant, given someone got their girlfriend/wife to pose nude for the current image it seems perfectly possible to get someone to pose nude multiple times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Most individuals I have met have apprehensions about posing in their birthday suit. Was I suprised a bit the first time I decided to look at the pregnancy article? Yes, but it is just because you normally don't see people pose that way for that sort of work. As for getting someone to privately take multiple nude pictures if they can, I would say that would be more informative then clother images simply because you could see physical changes clothes may conceal. I am still in the pool that believes the community doesn't require a nude for the lead image, but it does no harm to include it other than raising offense. Besides if you use the tact with a clothed image you would get at least 6 months before you would need to tread this argument again and hopefully the image filter would be working then. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be considered critical but womens bodies go over multitudes of changes when they are pregnant. Stretch marks for one, some women see increases in breast size (may or may not be apparent with clothes, that can really be argued either way) and if I was motivated to go back through what to expect when you are expecting probably a few others. Now since I don't particularly care if the image is clothed or not it doesn't really matter but when a physical condition changes the body nudes can be used to great effect. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
a) No stretch marks are visible in the image, and they could be shown with the woman wearing a bra if they were visible, b) given there is but a single image it isn't possible to know whether her breasts have changed in size.
This makes it clear there is no actual value in such an image, and thus this is clearly a case where we haven't come to the correct conclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The darkening and enlargement of the areola, both characteristic of pregnancy, are clearly visible. Granted, it would be nice to have a "before" comparison picture, but the changes are clear to anyone familiar with the typical appearance. PowersT00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago113 comments23 people in discussion
In part, the Wikimedia Foundation's May 2011 resolution concerning controversial images says
Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers [...] "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement. [...] principle of least astonishment: [...] respect [readers'] expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
This policy presently says
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable where these materials are relevant to the topic. Discussion of any such potentially objectionable material should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.
But the Foundation goes further than this. It urges us to pay particular attention to the educational value of controversial content, not just relevance. Hundreds of thousands of images and statements may be relevant to a given article, but not all relevant material will have real educational value. I'd like to see this policy incorporate both of these elements of the Foundation resolution, educational use and principle of least astonishment, by replacing the above with the words of the Foundation
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
While I was composing this, the above RfC was posted. I'll leave this here, though, as I don't think they conflict or duplicate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think "respect the reader's expectations" sounds too much like an enjoinder to simply ensure that no-one is ever offended by anything, which is too much. Maybe "consider reader expectations". On a more minor point, "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, which a literal reading of the above would suggest. Maybe "particularly involving sexuality, violence or religion". I also think the first sentence of the existing paragraph should be retained. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
"respects the conventional expectations of readers" is already part of the policy. With regard to "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, does this clear up the ambiguity?
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
With regard to retaining the first sentence, the purpose of this post is to argue that relevance alone is not enough to justify inclusion of any content, real educational value needs to be demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The current version is differently worded so as to not to give the impression of an enjoinder. We are asked to follow a principle. In your version, "respect the reader's expectations" is too strong. What if a reader comments: "I don't expect to see human nipples on Wikipedia". What process would we go through in order to respect this?
I don't get your point about the existing first sentence. It doesn't say that relevance alone is enough, it just clarifies that controvesial relevant content is includable on WP. I think your proposal is unbalanced if it focuses only on what is not allowed. And the difference between "relevance" and "real educational value" is too opaque to be useful, I think. All information that is relevant to an encyclopaedia is, by definition, of real educational value, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. "Consider" rather than "respect." That is different from the Foundation's use of "least astonishment." And would give us
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
which seems reasonable to me. With regard to the first sentence, I'm concerned that readers may take it that relevance alone is sufficient to justify inclusion of content, controversial or otherwise. Obviously educational merit, BLP, NPOV, etc, etc, also apply. Perhaps we could simply remove "where these materials are relevant to the topic"
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
Sorry FormerIP, I just noticed I didn't answer your question. I'm trying to make it clear that relevant means both related to the topic and important to the topic. At Talk:Muhammad/images we've proposed that there are degrees of image usefulness
misleading or harmful
useless - no relation to the topic
related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and (WP:DUE)
(edit conflict)I think that an image is more educational than an existing one is a valid reason to replace the image, however we must be extremely careful not to confuse the educational value of an image with the risk that prudish educational institutions may take offense to the image. That some readers or schools may find an image offensive makes it no less educational. Likewise, there should be no astonishment in finding a photograph of a human penis in the Human penis article. Really that is all common sense. The problem is that I think the foundations choice of words is nebulous, and can be read to suite the views of the reader. It can be read as consistent with current policy, or much more broadly. Monty84502:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, we know that the end result here is, our article on Muhammad will have the most common image of the figure, because for the remaining portion of the world that isn't of the Muslim religion that would be otherwise offended by the image, we are using it in an educational manner. That needs to be understood that is very much not likely to change. Ergo, the point of this exercise is to clear up that NOTCENSORED cannot be used to deny the use of material that a minority group would find patently offensive. This is in line with the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd be very helpful if we establish, straight out, that the decision here does not apply to the Muhammad article, period. That issue has been through enough debate and comment that it bears the risk of just beating a dead horse to try and address it here. Would anyone oppose specifically exempting that article from any changes or consensus arrived at here, since there'a already a specific consensus there? SDY (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, (IMO) very very wrong. Policies and policy changes get applied uniformly with no bias due to religious beliefs. If you wish otherwise, then it is the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR which we need to be discussing changes to. Until then, your statement has no merit.ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Side note, I may disagree with the outcome of this initiative (especially if it means wholesale removal of images from that article - overturning multiple consensus and an RfC and Village Pump proposal to keep the images), but I will still support the community's voice in it. Uniform. No exceptions (see my list above in the Comments section of Ludwigs2's "RfC"). etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think that is an unrealistic proposition. While no RFC here should be able to outright overrule the existing consensus at the Muhammad article, a policy shift here would unavoidably shift the statusquo there. The next time the debate starts in earnest at Muhammad, any change here WILL be used as a justification to reach a different consensus there, it may not sucseed, but it will be tried. It is also a terrible idea to explicitly exempt one article or subject from a general policy standpoint. Monty84503:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
While it may eventually affect that article, which is unavoidable, I just don't want to turn this discussion into yet another WP:COATRACK of that discussion. As far as blind and uniform application of policies to all articles I don't think that's necessarily a demand. While consensus can change on what to do over there, and the policy will inevitably be influenced by those discussions, we have to write this policy to apply to more than just Muhammad. SDY (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is already a coatrack of the Muhammad images debate. This discussion does not get started if not for all of the arguments there, so lets not pretend this is something it isn't. These proposals are a direct challenge to the prevailing view at that article, while the unintended consequences on other articles has not yet been explored or considered. Pretending that this isn't about that is just that: fantasy. Resolute16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Masem, note that the 6 images of Muhammad we have in the Muhammad article are very far indeed from representing the way Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. That's the whole problem in that article. Such depictions were very rare. The mainstream representations of Muhammad are calligraphy and pictograms, and there is a very rich tradition of those. For background, see [12] We're demonstrating and propagating our ignorance of Islam by illustrating the Muhammad article like the article on Jesus. --JN46603:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Shall we not vote on this yet? I've already changed my thinking somewhat thanks to input from FormerIP and I'd like to see more discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
A little too early, I agree. One thing to consider is bluelinking in some of the other policies and editing guidelines. The other thing I'd very much like to see is a a clear statement that controversial content can and should be removed if there is consensus to remove it. Redundant, perhaps, but I've seen some arguments over the past year that could be read as treating WP:NOTCENSORED as an absolute, which is obviously false, but some defensive writing (i.e. "cannot be misunderstood") on that account wouldn't hurt. SDY (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The next time the article on Muhammad makes the news, we'll have a ton of IPs and single purpose accounts proposing removal of all images - and have to follow that consensus. Same applies for other controversial topics. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What sock/meat puppetry? And how would they know if (as another example) an editor simply made a few posts on some high trafficked Islamic forums? And, you KNOW that such results, regardless of how they found out about the images, will be argued forever as reason to remove them all by some of the very editors here who have already made such arguments. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm rapidly losing interest in this, because it appears that this is just a coatrack of the Muhammad discussion. A thousand voices with one argument do not win over six voices with five arguments. We are not a democracy. If nothing else, I'm bumfuzzled by the obsessive/compulsive nature of the discussion over the Muhammad article, and I'm going to go work on something useful in the encyclopedia instead of trade barbs with people. SDY (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Per Monty's comment, I've just searched this talk page archive for "astonishment" and "foundation" and can't find a discussion on this topic.
Does anybody have criticisms or suggestions wrt the latest iteration of my proposed change
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
As per others, I dislike the "readers' expectations" portion. We are seeing that hashed out as well on the Muhammad article. I'd prefer "and consider ensure including such content fits within all of Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines such as (see my list above)" - those policies and guidelines really do cover pretty much every scenario brought up. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Yes, FormerIP objected to "respect readers' expectations" and recommended "consider readers' expectations." The principle of least astonishment is a specific recommendation of the foundation resolution wrt controversial content. And you are arguing that it doesn't belong in this policy. That, I guess, is what this thread is about: should the Foundation resolution be reflected in this policy? I'll be interested to hear what others have to say on that question, since it doesn't appear to have been discussed on this page before. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Check this [13] out to get an idea of the battle ahead. During all of this, someone changed the disclaimer heading on the talk page to say something very different than what the consensus was. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
To Anthony: Just for clarification (as it appears some of my intent hasn't been clear to others), it's not the intent I disagree with - it is simply the ambiguity of the word. For instance, by applying WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, I think it covers some of the scenarios we've been talking about. Hopefully that makes what I am trying to say make more sense. I'm too tired to propose better wording right now - maybe tomorrow if you or someone else hasn't thought of something. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to including the principle of least astonishment, though I favour it. I'm more concerned to clarify that controversial content needs to have demonstrable real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need this kind of change. The foundation resolution was targeted at Commons, which was being used as a porn holding tank. Our policies and procedures are adequate to ensure that only images with relevance to an encyclopedia are kept, and additional language will only be used to justify the removal of material that shouldn't be removed.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't being used as a porn holding bank, that was a moral panic. Policy needs to make it clear that offensive material should have a demonstrable educational use if it is to be placed in an article. I don't think the resolution only addresses Commons, but have asked a board member for clarification. [14] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that was a moral panic. However, here is the problem: "Offensive material should have a demonstrable educational value if it is to be placed in an article". Most opponents are trapped in circular reasoning that educational merit is lacking because the images are controversial. But while some argue the controversy is a reason to remove images, I would argue that that same controversy is why they should stay. If they weren't considered educational, there would not be such high support for their retention. The educational value of these images has already been proven. Also, I would suggest that the removal of the image of Muhammad burning in hell showed that there is no need to alter this policy, because as Jimbo said on his talk page, this project has a pretty good handle on things. Material which is intended to be provocative has been removed. But material for which offence is incidental has not. This is appropriate, in my view. Resolute16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors you characterize as opponents, but, assuming you include me in that group, I am capable of distinguishing between educational content and offensiveness. I cannot see that being controversial should ever be a reason to include an image that has no educational relevance to the article or section topic. With regard to the remainder of your comment, I'm not here to discuss Muhammad, there are plenty of other venues where you can do that :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, in various cases it is not that simple, and you are not able to distinguish such as an absolute by applying our own determination/opinion. And neither am I. Nor anyone else here. What may be educational to me may not be to you. And there will be a few issues/items/whatever where you will not be able to understand why I find something educational or vice-versa. If you rip your computer apart and pull all the components off the board and start writing up what each is, I will not find it educational in the least bit. I could point out what each component is while asleep with both hands tied behind my back. Betcha there are tons of people who would find it educational though. Now, back to the issue as I am stating it. There are things that fit into a category where people wont understand why something provides educational value (unlike my obvious example above). Does the article on a stove show detailed instructions on how to turn on the burner? No. No educational value - to us. It's about weighing what the community deems as educational. Not our beliefs. In this, it's a foregone conclusion that there is a lack of knowledge in this country on this topic. Thus, everything has a higher educational value for most our audience. Which doesn't apply to people like you or Jayen or such who are knowledgeable. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
"Respect the reader's expectations" is feel-good but meaningless drivel in the absence of well-designed surveys of the readership's reactions and expectations. As far as I can tell those surveys don't happen on Wikipedia. At best, Wikipedia editors are surveyed from time to time, and it's usually a highly-biased self-selected sample. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which balances contents based on how reliable sources deal with the material, not based on what a hypothetical and practically-never-properly-surveyed readership would like to see. [And be careful what you wish for. What if turns out that the people hitting the article on porn simply want to see lots of porn? Studies of internet bulk traffic and of Google top queries suggest this might be true. "The customer is always right?" We turn Wikipedia into a free porn site then?] On the other hand, simply adding that wording to the policy without doing any reader/customer studies [which is a far more likely scenario] just opens another gate for WP:Wikilawyers to argue "I know that it's offensive to the readers because such-and-such subset of the population objects to this material based on my deep gut feeling" as way to override WP:NPOV. So, I oppose this change as pointless verbiage at best and dangerously WP:CREEPy armament in the hands of POV pushers in more contentious cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I oppose any changes to the current policy of this kind. The entire premise of "particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature" is absolutely ridiculous. These are are different as can be. Sexual or violent material can be harmful to young people (I'm talking about Cock and ball torture etc. not nudity). Religious material is entirely different. "Religion" is a very very broad tent. I'm a church-goer myself and I think religion is great when it helps us address questions of our place in the universe, provides comfort, gives us guidance in being good people, and draws us together as a community. Stuff like taboos on eating pigs etc, though, is just rank superstition. Superstition gets mixed up with religion, and this is a problem. Avoiding idolatry is reasonable (idolatry arguably interferes with a truer connection to the Divine and so forth), so it's reasonable for Muslims to not build statues of Muhammed or pray to pictures of him. A taboo on any images of him anywhere is just superstition. I oppose giving any special-pleading rights to people's superstitions. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think my wording reflects the Foundation resolution. I recommend it, as well as this study by two researchers commissioned by the board, and the report of the board working group. Please consider their arguments. The purpose is only to avoid unnecessary controversy, without sacrificing a jot of educational value. No one, in these two threads or at Talk:Muhammad/images is arguing we shouldn't use depictions of Muhammad. The argument is we shouldn't use them when they do not add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that kind of "research" was and is a waste of donated money. I've not seen any empirical evidence of what the readers expect in that study. Only two "expert" opinions. Those are a dime a dozen on a topic like this. Wanna buy some parental control software? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
From the expert's user page, half of which is dedicated to telling us who he isn't, just the relevant part: I'm actually the Robert Harris who has written a couple of books introducing newcomers to classical music and who has created a few series for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about music, most recently "20 Pieces of Music that Changed the World". (Music is my second career). Although for the time being, I'm happy to be known within the Wikimedia community as the consultant working on the study of "potentially objectionable" images. Speaks for itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If all you have to offer is expert opinion, the you'd better be an expert. Applies to court proceedings and most businesses, especially those that spend their own money. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed changes. I don't actually see any problem. Of course, people are always going to make lots of noise about contentious issues like this - but prior consensus has established that it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive' - we should only be concerned with encycloapedic value, and appropriately neutral coverage. I think the 'least astonishment' remark is fine as it is. Chzz ► 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
When an image is controversial and adds nothing relevant to the readers' understanding, I believe we should not use it. We frequently use images that do not add to the readers' understanding (see the lead image at Pain), and I don't object to them usually, but I do when they are offensive or harmful. That's the intention of this proposed amendment, simply to avoid gratuitous controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps I'm too close to it. Wikipedia abounds with images related to the topic but that don't add relevant understanding. To argue such images off the encyclopedia using current policy, controversial or not, at least the way policy is presently interpreted, is impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
And you honestly believe that editors engaging in second guessing what "reader's expectation" might be does anything to alleviate that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That language is already in the policy. My proposed text clarifies that editors should make sure controversial content has relevant educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
But there in lies the catch; who determines educational value. Two people will almost never assign the same value to the same thing. I think it will just lead us back to square one personally since we have already seen different individuals put separate values on images. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could believe that. It is rather difficult to, however, when the goalposts are continually moved, as in this case. Resolute03:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment All pictures have educational value: "a picture is worth a 1000 words." It comes down to editorial judgment whether it is relevant, and how it's relevant (eg. does it mislead) and that is determined by consensus. Perhaps reference to pictures used in other reference works, in this "controversial" arena, would be one helpful criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose due to the subjectivity, potential for abuse, and harm to our content that the wording would produce as well as the implication by this proposal that policy should be based around the WMF, and not on internal community consensus. Defining content that is sexual, violent, etc as potentially offensive is injecting clear bias in our handling of that content. Everything has the potential to be offensive, and to decide only to treat material that is objectionable to the general population differently from material that is potentially offensive to smaller groups is showing a clear preference for the majority of readers. It also becomes troublesome to decide on what is potentially offensive to the majority of users, do we choose American societal norms, and place a preference for American readers over others? Or Western societal norms over Muslim? What this change is implicitly asserting by singling out violence, sex, and religion is that we should avoid info that is "potentially offensive to the general English speaking audience" which is clear WP:POV. Also, Wikipedia is a self-governing community that works on broad internal consensus, and should take WMF's recommendations as just that, and not as a incentive for uprooting long held policies.AerobicFox (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Everything" has the potential to be offensive? Here's the image from the lead of our article about apples. Can you tell me what could be offensive about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a radical environmental zealot, Wikipedia is ruining people's health by using images of genetically altered apples to represent the fruit instead of organic or heirloom apples. This is part of a growing trend on Wikipedia to represent fruit as it has become and not as it naturally is, please replace with a picture of an apple grown organically(as apples have been grown for the majority of history), and stop being part of the movement to poison people's diet with unnatural food. Etc, etc.
And believe me, these people are out there: www.amazon.com/review/R3TKTSOPJ83EXA/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=6305942331&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful(Link is blacklisted) Amazon Review of "The Tigger Movie"
I found this movie very disappointing. It was so full of low-level slapstick violence that it felt more like a warner brother's cartoon than a Winnie the Pooh Movie. While the story was a sweet message, Eeyore's home being smashed by a rock and roo crashing into closets concerned my two year old deeply. What happened to a great storyline without the bells and whistles of violence to move it along? I'll stick to the Blustery Day. Once again, Disney gets a D-.
Go to any popular product on Amazon that you feel is unoffensive, and some people will give it a 1 star rating and be offended by it.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the Amazon reviewer claiming to be offended. Do you? "I don't like to show violent storylines to my child" is not the same thing as "I'm offended by this movie".
As for your creative apple response, it appears to me that the apple in question is a Fuji, which is a "natural" cross that originated decades before genetic engineering was even possible. Do you want to try again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't really feel a need to "try again" at explaining something to you. How incredibly petty to even tell another to do that. Unless you wish to make a counter argument that argues that "potentially offensive" things are limited in scope you are not adding anything by making potshots at others posts. Yes, the vast majority of Fuji apples we eat are genetically modified(here are their patents); whether I should have said "virtually everything" as opposed to "everything" or "offended/shocked/disgusted/any other negative reaction" on top of "offended" will not move this discussion any further.AerobicFox (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not even "virtually everything". The vast majority of images we use, as we use them, have basically zero potential for offensiveness.
BTW, you might like to read a bit about plant patents. Patents are not restricted to genetically engineered items; they are also freely assigned to anyone who happens to be the first person to notice a naturally occurring mutation. All of the patents I checked in your list involved zero genetic engineering:
"The new variety of apple tree, `Moana` was discovered as a limb sport mutation of a `Nagafu-6` (unpatented) Fuji apple tree which was then growing in a cultivated orchard controlled by the inventors, and which is located at Upper Moutere, Nelson,New Zealand in May, 1996, during routine orchard operations."
"The new Malus `FUJIKO` was discovered by the inventors, Michelangelo Leis and Carlo Mazzola, in the summer of 2002 in a block of Fuji apple tree designated as `NAGAFU 12` (unpatented), growing in a cultivated area of an orchard in Migliaro,Ferrara, Italy."
"The present invention relates to a variety of an apple tree obtained by branch mutation and by selection of the variety Fuji. "
"The new cultivar `Candy` originated as a limb sport mutation of `Aztec` Fuji (not patented). It was discovered by the inventor in a cultivated orchard at Upper Moutere, Nelson, New Zealand."
"virtually zero potential" is still the same as "potential" which images will always have on offending somebody. Yes, it is true that there are currently no commercially grown genetically modified apples, but you could just as well alter the example person to being against cloned apples. Heck, if you want to be really hypothetical then there could be someone with a religion who believes Apples are holy fruit that should not be illustrated. If it makes you feel better you can change "everything" to "a lot of our images" although it still does not change my argument. There are going to be people offended by the presence of any sexual image, offended by historic racist drawings, uncovered women, animal mating, depictions of religious deities, depictions of animal violence, depictions of pigs roasted over an open flame, depictions of children playing in traffic, running with knives, or drinking underage, etc, etc. The list of things with the potential to offend somebody is unmanageable unless you narrow it down to what will offend a certain segment of the population, and catering to that segment is POV.AerobicFox (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I put the Foundation resolution forward not as an edict for us to obey, but as a proposition to consider. I am addressing the use of controversial images only where their use is of no real didactic value; the kind of image that WP:IUP expressly identifies as worthy of avoiding:
(Images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter
Wikipedia abounds with images that fail to conform to this policy. I am proposing that, when content is controversial, we should pay particular attention to whether it conforms to IUP in that respect and, if not, apply IUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Meaning no disrespect to your proposal, but the current wording of WP:NOTCENSOR already states as much. The only differences I see(apart from emphasis) with your proposal is the addition of these parts:
all kinds of potentially controversial content
Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use
respect the reader's expectations
The problems I have with these changes are:
In practice "potentially offensive" = potentially offensive to general Western societal norms, which is not global or inclusive of smaller subgroups
This is really more directed at determining whether or not to host controversial content on Commons(to whom this paragraph was addressed to). It is talking about "categorization and placement" and is referencing arguments over there concerning whether we should be deleting controversial content that likely won't have any use on any of the Wikiprojects. The statement as written would need to be changed to addressing the illustrative/informative value of media on the article, and not "educational purpose" or "categorization", etc.
This is subjective and allows potential for POV abuse by replacing realistic images with less graphic ones to downplay the topic, as well as other problems.
Oppose changes. This seems to be an end-run by those espousing a minority viewpoint about the propriety of displaying historic representations of middle eastern deities. Unable to fillibuster or edit war their way to a reversal of policy, now they take another tack.Losing one battle in a long and thoroughly disruptive war of attrition in the name of political correctness, they start another. The policy is well-established and works fine, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No one. Again, no one. One more time, no one here is discussing middle eastern deities. You have accused me of engaging in fillibuster (sic), edit war, and end-run (whatever that is). I know I'm not guilty of the first two. Please strike your completely uninformed comment, as it may confuse or mislead others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
5/ non-content pages may indeed have restrictions on content as their role is supportive (eg WP:UP),
Try this wording:
Wikipedia is a neutral reference source, serving a worldwide audience of many ages, from many cultures and many needs, so it contains a very broad range of information and illustrative media. Content is decided on every one of our 61,765,955 pages by members of the public who visit our site and edit our articles (You can too!).
Our encyclopedia pages are not censored. They will not always contain just the content you expect. They contain whatever editors feel is appropriate or reasonable for the page to serve its entire audience. In some cases this may breach your personal social or religious norms, perhaps very strongly. Since changes may be made by anyone, inappropriate material may sometimes appear before it can be removed, although obviously inappropriate content (such as clear vandalism, clear copyright breach, or material clearly illegal for us to host) is usually removed very quickly. Restrictions apply in two main areas.
2. Content on "community" pages (rather than "encyclopedia" pages) are subject to different considerations, since their function is to support the community which makes Wikipedia possible. Some kinds of content are generally agreed to be unproductive for that purpose and may be forbidden, or hidden or deleted if posted.
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should generally seek to focus on its [[informational value and policy compliance in a given article (including accuracy, neutrality and sourcing). "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Under- or over-stated content is usually reason to fix–or discuss fixing–the issue if practical. Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws or rules of organizations forbidding information about the organization to be displayed online, because organizational rules only affect their members and Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.
Benefits:
Explains why it's not censored
Explains that members of the public create our content and "you can too" - key information since the most common question of someone whose complaint about objectionable content is rejected is to try and identify who is responsible for content on Wikipedia
Simplifies the classic "not censored" issues people may hit
Explains the main areas we do restrict content in mainspace and community space - one of the most common ways WP:NOT#CENSORED gets referenced is editors who try to argue that "not censored means I should be allowed to say what I choose and add what I want". A quick summary of where and how we do restrict content is likely to be helpful.
It's a vast improvement. One concept I would add is that the determination "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" should always "be guided by reliable sources". Well done, FT2. --JN46607:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"Appropriate to" is the problem, it's vague, uninformative, and will be hijacked anyway to mean "appropriate for children, for modesty, etc". Edited - "informational value" is much harder to hijack and also closer to (and more exactly) what we do consider. Good catch. FT2(Talk | email)07:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Informational or educational value is good, but that such value exists should be demonstrated by recourse to reliable sources that share that view. Otherwise we're again hoplessly into OR territory ("well, I find it useful"). --JN46607:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Not needed here - cannot explain every policy here. It explains they need to convince others there is a lack of informational value, and that puts the debate in the right kind of arena, if they convince others well and good, if they use poor sources and poor arguments they won't convince anyone. I did add "and policy compliance" which covers RS but also a range of other things too. Reasonable? FT2(Talk | email)07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Update - Also whether it has value is often subjective, and needs editorial consensus. I'm thinking of the kinds of debate which focus on whether a given image is "appropriate" for an article. That decision has to be made editorially and the correct focus will be its value (or lack of value) to that article. There won't be RS to decide such things, just community views. So you can't assume RS will be how such debates are solved. Many settle based on whether editors feel the disputed image or text is "good for the article" (ie its informational value in one way or another) as reckoned subjectively by participants in the debate. FT2(Talk | email)08:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Certainly not unreasonable—I agree it's covered by your links to due weight and Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/Content ("Basically, Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, viewpoints and summaries that already exist and are expressed elsewhere.") But the mode of discussion you describe is in my view part of the problem, because of its subjectivity, and its lack of recourse to sources. Take the example Hans Adler gave, of the editor who kept inserting his photograph of a woman in the process of defecating into the defecation article, defending it with NOTCENSORED. I would argue that the best course of action in such a case is not to ask, "Do you guys think this image is informational, or appropriate?", or "Do you think it correctly illustrates the article topic?" It's "Do reliable sources demonstrate that this kind of image is educationally useful, by including it?" If they do, fine; if they don't, it goes, whether it illustrates the article topic or not. We are not here to define new editorial standards of our own making; we are here to reflect existing expressions and presentations of knowledge. Cheers. --JN46608:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, in that case the discussion's a different one. The question you raise is more "what standard do we have for deciding an item (eg image) is okay in a given article?" That one is a genuinely thorny issue so it's not one I have engaged here. Some will completely disagree that your view on the appropriate criterion is "correct". For example a valid rebuttal might be: "Just because a given concept hasn't been illustrated a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to do it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." (I say that just to show there is a genuine open question in your post, not to debate the point)
What we can say without going into that territory is, the locus of the decision will be its informational value. Although users might disagree how we assess that value (use in RS might be one method) in all cases they are trying to estimate somehow its value in providing information to the reader. So this at least places the debate in the right arena, people posting an objection are told to consider its value to a reader (but no specific stipulation how to assess that value, because no policy mandates how we assess that value) and its policy compliance as their main points. It's close enough for today in the sense it marginally improves from before. From there on it's like xFD in the sense that every discussion will be unique so the best we can do today is say that this is broadly the right kind of arena. If consensus is ever reached on a general rule, today isn't the day it happens. FT2(Talk | email)08:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I would counter the "cutting edge" argument by saying it is intellectually inconsistent with the entire premise of Wikipedia, formalised in the dawn of the project: that we reflect reliable sources. We are not writing text with a mindset that says, "Just because a given concept hasn't been written about in a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to write about it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." Putting talk page consensus as to "what would be a useful thing to say here" above what reliable sources say is anathema to every sourcing policy we have. It is an odd and, it seems to me, not consciously rationalised act of splitting to think that we should treat text one way, firmly binding ourselves to the judgment of reliable sources, and handle illustrative media in a completely different way, where local editor consensus is the supreme arbiter. I agree this won't be hashed out today, and as Anthony says, this may not be the best place to start, but it is worth thinking about. So enough for now. As things stand, I support your rewrite as a better reflection and summary of the interaction between the NOTCENSORED principle and other policies and guidelines. Cheers. --JN46609:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Made an edit to the last para[15] - 1/ simplified 1st sentence (no need to say both in positive and negative), 2/ noted that "compliance" implies accuracy/neutrality/sourcing since otherwise it's not clear if this sentence covers factual errors, 3/ added that under or overstatement (ie WEIGHT) is resolved by fixing not removing where possible. Last para flows a bit better and provides a brief guide to "ok it's not censored but I think it needs fixing, now what?"FT2(Talk | email)10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this proposal is massive WP:CREEP. It does not belong in a policy. It lacks any discernible focus. It might be suitable for a personal essay though. Point 2 (in the boxed text) in particular is simply a repetition of the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site" section. And the essence of point 1 (also in the boxed text) is better worded in the current policy without the massive mash-up of stuff addressed in other sections of the policy, e.g. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". The other stuff (how many pages there are, "you can edit!") is simply distracting in the extreme. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree with this, but I'm concerned that it might not make the point of relevance sufficiently clear. Consider an image of an automobile with a naked person standing next to it. This image has "informational value": It tells you (1) what a naked human looks like, (2) that naked humans exist in modern/technological society, (3) that some person—perhaps from our pro-naturist community of editors—wanted this image in the article, etc. But the presence of the naked human in the image doesn't provide any informational value about automobiles. We may need an explicit reference to being on-topic, editorial judgment, or least surprise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The point for this policy is that we don't censor - arguments to remove or replace the image should focus on the value (mission statement) and policy/guideline compliance of the image in the article (we have policies/guidelines on image saliency/shock images/etc) and not on mere "objectionability". If it's in the grey area then "what value does an image with a naked person add to our article for a reader wishing to learn about X?" is exactly the kind of thing someone objecting should consider, rather than just IDONTLIKEIT.
My core concern is, it's almost (in a way) seeking to hijack "censorship" to cover something that is better classed under content criteria. On this page the piont is we don't censor but we may remove content or images if editors agree it doesn't enhance the article (ie insufficient value to the article) or doesn't comply with policies/guidelines. FT2(Talk | email)17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I am so very seriously against the removal of the religious/secular portion of the last paragraph. There are way too many articles I watch because of massive POV/BIASED changes attempted by or on behalf of various religious sects. Anyone remember Scientology or LDS or similar? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
While those matter, a policy on Wikipedia not being censored, isn't the right place to go into the many POV dispute issues we handle. In this case the kind of religion that has such issues is pretty clearly covered by the word "organization" so it's sufficient. The church is an organization as well as a religion. Scientology is an organization as well as anything else it might be considered. We don't need to specify "organization, religion, group, band, company, country, ethnicity" - we're making the point that if you have internal rules on not publishing information, Wikipedia isn't bound by them. That's all we're saying here. "Organization" is sufficient for this policy since any group with rules presumably has some organization to establish and enforce them internally and we're just making the point "if you have rules, they aren't enforcable here". Hope you can agree this does the job. It does need expanding elsewhere, but that's usually part of NPOV, RS and WEIGHT not censorship. FT2(Talk | email)17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but (a) it's the only portion removed and (b) numerous editors, unless it is specifically stated, will not consider religion to fit within those criteria - much less their religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, if you follow backwards on all of this to its originating page, you will find editors who (even with it currently spelled out) don't care about the fact that religion is specifically named. Removing it makes things even worse. Thus, still STRONGLY OPPOSED to removing that portion of the last paragraph. In this, I will remain so. I've watched hundreds of articles edit warred over due to religious beliefs, even WITH religion in that paragraph - and all sorts of rationale for why their religion trumps policy. Removing it will make things far worse. It's bad enough that people have attempted to use IAR to violate it to honor religious beliefs/dictates. Side note, many people do not consider religion to be an organization. And virtually no one considers their beliefs (regardless of what religious group inspired such beliefs) to be an organization. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If it is that big a problem, then would something like this do (drawing on my response to your point on my talk page):
1st draft: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws or rules of organizations forbidding information about the organization to be displayed online, because organizational rules only affect their members and Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."
Updated: "Wikipedia is not a member of any organization, religion, or political group, so rules by other bodies which are binding on their members carry no weight within Wikipedia. Wikipedia will not remove content just because some religion, organization, advocacy group, political entity, or person believes that some matters should not be presented to the general public.
I like it. Perhaps a couple tweaks? I am wondering if the use of a semi-colon might make it flow better? Also, as I do not often use them, I guess first I am wondering if such a use is proper. "[...]organization, religion or political group; rules by other such bodies which are binding on their members carry[...]" Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Blatant problem with current policy
There is a blatant problem with current policy... it's that the policy is bandied about as a trump card. The current policy reads, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. To which I fully agree. The problem is that simply because material might be objectionable does not mean that it should get a free-ride. Too often, rather than discussing the merits of an image/content, people appeal to "NOTCENSOR" and use this policy as the sole basis for inclusion as if the controversial material should be included because it is controversial and any effort to quell it is NOTCENSOR. The policy should be neutrally written, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content. As it is currently written, the policy puts the onus solely on the shoulders of people attempting to remove controversial material, but none on people wanting to include it.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon21:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd propose it's not relevant... inotherwords: "[...]Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." --> "[...]"Being objectionable is not relevant grounds for removal or inclusion of content"
That only works with your first proposed sentence though, namely: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." - or more simply put, "is there a reason and relevance for the content? If so, great, include it. If not, great, don't include it. Objectionable thus doesn't apply, since there's either a reason or lack thereof to have the content in the article."
Anyway, that's my views - especially because (as we've learned above), people's ideas of "objectionable" are so widely different. Of course, people like me probably care the least about "objectionable" content since such people don't find much of anything "objectionable"... disgusting? weird? thought provoking? (or various other descriptors) sure, yes. But it always seemed silly for me to object to something simply because I didn't like it or thought it was disgusting. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN19:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The key point is that material should not get preferential treatment because it is objectionable, and many people seem to think that it should. When somebody challenges the use of "objectionable" material, the conversation does not center on the merits (or lack thereof) of the content, it goes to "NOTCENSORED". Rather than demonstrating or discussing the content, people play the NOTCENSORED line as if it were a trump card---which clearly it should not be. WP is NOTCENSORED in taht it isn't governed by the foundation and simply being offensive is not sufficeint grounds for removal. But for any content, it should be judged on what it brings to the article. An image of a grieving wife over a casket may be fine in some articles, but would it be appropriate in the lead of an article on the US Army? No, it would not be. Would putting a caracature in the lead of an article on Obama/Bush be appropraite? No. We constantly make editorial decisions based upon the merits of the contribution. SImply because somebody wants to move/remove something because it is offensive, doesn't mean that their position is without merit. Perhaps the value added isn't sufficeint to include the offensive material? Perhaps it is. The onus should be on proving it one way or another, NOTCENSORED should NOT be a free pass for including something that isn't necessary.
Perfect example, the lead image in the body art article has had a man whose manhood was fully painted. Having that in the lead adds no value to the article. But per NOTCENSORED, removing the image because it is a full nude would not be appropriate. Eventhough other images serve the role just as good as if not better, the current wording would forbid making that change.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with most of what you wrote. wp:notcensored has been abused numerous times. Even with your example. But... how to word it where additional image/text elements are not "added" to selection criteria without creating wording that allows it to be used for "offensive" material based on religious beliefs. For instance, if it were an article on genital body painting, we'd get a ton of "moral" and religious complaints. Just as we get one sect of Christianity "vandalizing" and lobotomizing articles on "fake" faiths who "misinterpret" the Bible and "offend" their beliefs. I agree a problem exists... but I don't agree that any of the proposed wording deals with that problem without crippling the true points and reasons for wp:censor. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I see the other problem, and it's one of skewed perspectives. For instance, in your example, I would see a picture of genitals that happen to be tattooed. Thus I'd see it as a no brainer and agree with your assessment, regardless of how wp:censor is or isn't changed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That's why I made the proposal very minor and modest. The only person who would argue against that change are people who want to put the sole barrier on people who object---not on what is best for the article. Having a nude/offensive content in an article can have benefits and costs. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? If the answer is yes, then the nude/controversial material should remain. If the answer is no, then it should be removed. That is the editorial process. With the current wording, those who want it removed can simply say, "NOTCENSOR" and move on... which does the project a disservice. If material is included (or excluded/moved) it should be included/excluded/moved on its own merit, not on an appeal to a generic policy that can't evealuate the situation. Furthermore, controversial material has to be weighed for each article, because the scope of the article or material may be more or less controversial in different settings. Having a nude in the lead of Natural childbirth would not be controversial at all, but the same image in the article on Pregnancy has generated over a gigs worth of discussion. Similarly, images of Mohamed might be more controversial in an article on Mohamed than an article on the Depictions of Muhammad.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This proposal has put the finger precisely on the right point. Congratulations. Anyone opposing this change will have a hard time arguing that this happens in good faith. HansAdler17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not the main problem with the policy though. "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness" seriously needs clarification. First, does it mean offensiveness cannot play a role in curatorial decisions, or does it mean it must be weighed against real educational value? Does it mean that the most grossly offensive image belongs on a page if it carries any related information at all, or only if it is highly relevant information? Are there instances where a highly relevant image would be excluded from an article because it is offensive?
Rob, I'm curious about this from above:
Agreed with most of what you wrote. wp:notcensored has been abused numerous times. Even with your example. But... how to word it where additional image/text elements are not "added" to selection criteria without creating wording that allows it to be used for "offensive" material based on religious beliefs.
Regarding the part of your comment not directed at Rob, the passage you quote means offensiveness does not play any role in such discussions because it's entirely irrelevant to them. Images and other media are chosen solely on educational value to the article/section they illustrate. Both the image that you or anyone else might consider the most grossly offensive and the image that you or anyone else might consider the least offensive belong on the article if and only if they are the image that best illustrates the article/section in question.
I think irrelevancy is the key point that those wanting to change the current policy are finding most difficult to grasp. We don't include or exclude an image because it is offensive or not offensive, in exactly the same way that we don't include or exclude an image because it was or was not created by an Italian or a Venezuelan. How offensive anyone thinks an image is or isn't, no matter why they think or don't that, has the same relevance to its educational value to the article as is the nationality of the photographer/artist - i.e. absolutely none at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that, on the face of it, simply hewing tightly to WP:IUP's "(images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter" will solve offensiveness issues in most instances. If an image is relevant and offensive, it belongs, on the basis of its relevance. If it is irrelevant and offensive it must go, because it is irrelevant.
The problem is, many editors ignore relevance or don't understand the meaning of the word: directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered. The project abounds with images incidentally connected with but not important to the topic. Here, I have challenged two people to remove the lead image from ADHD on the grounds that it is unimportant to an understanding of the topic. One veteran editor did and was immediately reverted by another veteran editor. [16] (I have no problem with the present image staying, this is just an example to demonstrate educationally valueless images are vigorously defended.)
Since all of the arguments in favour of the status quo are premised on, "Relevance is the only criterion when deciding image placement" and the ADHD example (and I can take you to as many other examples as are necessary to justify the inference) demonstrates this premise is false, I'm not sure where to go from here.
Being polite and respectful to editors and readers will be an important factor determining the success and survival of the project, so, when we see gratuitous, offensive images in our articles, we should remove them. You say, if they're gratuitous, just remove them, per WP:IUP. I have demonstrated that this is often impossible, because editors either do not understand the meaning of the word "relevant" or simply routinely ignore WP:IUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anthony, to your question in your last statement. It was a specific based on earlier conversation. As a generalized answer, please read it as "[...]without creating wording that allows it to be used for (removal of) "offensive" material based on religious, political, personal, corporate, governmental or other such beliefs"
And to expound on that (which I think I did in another section - should have above as well), that thought would continue as follows (which I believe addresses your earlier point, and you'll find is consistent with my other posts on this matter): Offensiveness, for whatever reason, should not be used as criteria for justifying removal or inclusion of any content. Reasons based on "it offends me because of my (pick any or add "your" own personal reason:) religious/political/personal/corporate/etc beliefs..." should be summarily discarded because we are not permitted to insert our own bias and POV into an article, regardless of whether one or a million other people hold such a view. Instead, inclusion or removal of content should be judged by whether or not the content is relevant, informational and/or educational (certain content requires one or both criteria, IMO), carries the correct licensing or fair use claim and is properly used. Additionally, such content should only be used within the parameters of WP:MOS and related policies and guidelines (such as MOS\Images, IUP, etc for image - or BLP for biographical information relevant to a living person). And finally, consistency, as determined by policies, guidelines and standards should be applied universally - not in a "pick and choose" fashion.
Inotherwords, I personally think that "special case objections/exceptions/etc" should be discarded whenever brought up. In my opinion, they are simply someone trying to hide their personal beliefs behind other rationale. Instead, such objections should be directed to another venue, such as Village Pump or community-wide RfC to determine a community decision that affects ALL such instances. As an example we've oft mentioned lately: the depictions of Muhammad do not necessarily depict what he actually looked like (though there is a chance someone "got it right", I think (a) it would be rare, (b) unlikely, and (c) we couldn't prove if that was the case) as they were done after his death. So, skipping the part of policy and guideline that permits such depictions for a second (let's pretend that such does not specifically say that such is permitted), an objection such as "that's not what he looked like" should be sent to VP or community RfC and ignored for the Muhammad article - because it is a single case objection that the editor(s) are not applying uniformly (remember the list of a dozen other articles I made a while back that would also be affected by such?). That shows a very likely (not definite, but very likely) bias on the part of the editor who is unwilling or uncaring about applying such rationalization uniformly across Wikipedia. And even if that bias does not exist, it should be dealt with in the proper venue, because (a) we need to stop making special case exceptions on Wikipedia (that will destroy the encyclopedic nature of WP) and (b) simply going against policies, guidelines and our interpretations-through-use of such on a single case situation is not the way to deal with it. Instead, clarifying the policy in an unbiased fashion is the way to deal with it... such as (above example again) "should Wikipedia allow the use of depictions of people when it is known that those depictions are likely not to be realistic portrayals of how the person looked? This would affect such articles as (list at least a few dozen of the hundreds of thousands of affected articles - not just the Muhammad one)"
Now, in that particular case, it is already covered in policies and guidelines - and the answer is that such is specifically permitted - so in that particular case, the proper method would be Village Pump with an effort to change policies and guidelines (as opposed to clarifying their use).
But, regardless, I hope you get the point. Screw these special case exceptions. If we keep catering towards such, it will never end. If we pick and choose which articles get granted such, then we are imposing our biases and POVs on articles. Can't win either way. And offense is not a justification for destroying Wikipedia with more and more and more and more special case exceptions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Rob. To be clear, you're opposed to us taking any offensiveness into account when curating images, sexual, violent, religious, whatever, and basing our decisions purely on relevance? Wrt relevance, please see my response to Thryduuf, above.
I'm undecided about letting offensiveness affect inclusion of highly relevant images (Goatse.cz, pic's of "Drunken Muhammad" in the "Western reception" section of Muhammad, etc.). I could live with an encyclopedia that includes such images. My problem is with controversial images that are unimportant to the readers' understanding of a topic; e.g., an artist's impression of Muhammad and the stone. This, to me, is clearly unimportant to the readers' understanding of the section or article. But you (I think) and others are asserting it is relevant (related and important). It's hard for me to accept on the one hand "Oh, if it's irrelevant you can just remove it. Relevance is the only criterion for inclusion/exclusion." and on the other hand "An anachronistic and misleading artist's imagining of what the event might have looked like is relevant." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thryduulf, you say, "I think irrelevancy is the key point that those wanting to change the current policy are finding most difficult to grasp. We don't include or exclude an image because it is offensive or not offensive" -- Actually, the idea was, if we have an image that appears to be controversial, to refer to sources and check if we are in line with them. The lead image in pregnancy is a nude image. Some people object. They may object with good reason. So what do we find if we look at book covers, health education websites and other sources on pregnancy? [17] We don't usually find a nude image. The most common type of image in English-language sources is actually a clothed image, often with the belly partly exposed, or sometimes showing the woman in underwear. Nude images are in third place. At that point we can forget about offence and simply remember NPOV. Problem solved. Or take an article on a (skin) mole. Moles can occur on any part of the body, can't they? So someone adds an image of a mole on a penis. Or a breast. People complain. Editors reply, "The article is about moles, this image shows a mole, WP is not censored, so the image remains. Go away." Wrong. Dead wrong. The thing to do is to look at sources. Do sources show penises or breasts to illustrate what a mole is? Hell, no. They show an unidentifiable piece of skin on an arm, leg, or whatever. So, out the image goes, replaced with one that conforms to customary editorial standards. Simple. --JN46601:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
No, you are still missing the point. If you don't think the image at $article is a good illustration for the topic, then go to the article's talk page and explain why you think it isn't a good illustration or why you think this other image you've found would better. Make reference to things like composition, educational value, etc, and editors will discuss it. You might find that they disagree with you, but that is just like every other aspect of Wikipedia. The key point to remember though is that whether you or anyone else finds it offensive is irrelevant. Just like if you said "I want to change the lead image at Rice because I think it was taken by a Dutchman" editors would quite rightly say tell you that the nationality of the photographer is irrelevant, they'll quite rightly tell you that offensiveness or otherwise is irrelevant. Regarding the other sources, I posted somewhere on this page a list of the minimum information needed to make a semi-educated guess at why a source used a particular image. When you have found that information for each of the sources you're comparing it to, make your guess as to why they chose the image they did and present your findings on the talk page and see if there is a consensus of editors that agrees with you. If they do, then the image will be changed, if they don't then it wont.
Regarding skin moles. The images used to illustrate the article should be the ones that provide the greatest educational benefit, regardless of what bit of skin the mole is on. If you think that there is a better image to illustrate than is currently used (I've not read the article) then propose it on the talk page explaining why you think it's better, but remember that because you think something is offensive is not a reason why it is better or worse than an image you don't find offensive - it's completely irrelevant. An image that you find offensive is no more or less protected than an image you don't find offensive. Every image that a consensus of editors at an article think is encyclopaedically the best image available to us to illustrate the topic is protected. Every image that is irrelevant to the article is removed. Every image that is superceded by a better image is removed. I don't know how many more times we have to keep explaining it - offensiveness to you me, the Pope, you next door neighbour, the most senior Rabbi in Australia, a vegan, a flat earther, a creationist, the vicar of Stow-on-the-Wold, Tony Benn, the Imam of the largest mosque in Pakistan, a pacifist, a beef farmer, Sarah Palin, Kim Jong-Il, your butcher's granddaughter, Hugh Heffner, or anyone else is of no consequence, it's not a reason for adding an image, it's not a reason for removing an image. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I kind of disagree with both of you to an extent - and kind of agree with both of you to an extent. I would see the picture mentioned above as "a penis with a mole on it" and not as "a mole, that just so happens to be on a penis". Perhaps it's because I do film-making, and I always consider what visual element the person's eye will be attracted to and which such element will generate the first thought in their mind. If I saw that picture, my thoughts would be "there's a penis... oh, wait, that's a mole on it". Hence, I agree with Jayen's suggestion as to which image would be better suited - but for different reasons. At the same time, I agree with Thryduulf's counter-argument - but dont think it applies very well to Jayen's example. This also fits the crux of one of my arguments on the images of Muhammad. I don't see Muhammad in any picture except where his face is shown (veil, calligraphy, etc). Now, for me, that doesn't apply to all of the historical settings images, nor a few images of "here's how some people avoid portraying him (veiled picture). I think those are also valid and warranted in the article - but not as "here's how Muhammad was perceived to look" - which is something I will never see in the "here's me (the artist or the defacer) hiding how he was perceived to have looked" - it creates the exact opposite feeling for me - which was the intent of the artist or defacer and why it should not be used as a substitute for a depiction of how he was perceived to have looked.
In Jayen's example, (or even Muhammad), I dont think offense matters. I think perception does, as I stated in my "thoughts" on what I'd see portrayed. One does not focus on the mole-hill when the mountain takes up the whole picture. Though, again, in agreement with Thryduulf in other matters, if it was an article on "genital moles" I'd fully expect to see a penis or vagina or whatever with a mole on it - and be very annoyed at any claim of "offense" because people want to force their sensibilities on me or others. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thryduulf, as far as I see, you want the community to be the arbiter of what's "educational" without referring to reliable sources. That's OR and editor POV, and leads to bad decisions. As an example, the German article on de:Meningitis includes an autopsy image of a sawn-off skull. Editors are arguing that it is educational, which it is, but it is still undue in a general text on meningitis written for a general audience if general overviews of meningitis (as opposed to articles on post-mortem diagnosis of meningitis) don't include such images. As Sue pointed out a while ago, there is a whole world of expertise out there on how to present medical matters to the public, and it's our job to tap into and reflect that expertise. --JN46614:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the specific article you cite - what the German Wikipedia does is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Taking the general case though, if you feel that an image is educational but not the most educational image or not the most appropriate image then what you need to do is very simple. Go to the article talk page and explain why you believe what you do, including with references to other sources if that is part of your reason. Suggesting an alternative image that you believe would be better is usually productive. If there is a consensus of editors that supports your reasoning, the image will be changed, if there isn't it wont. If your reason is "it's offensive" then don't be surprised if editors point you to WP:NOTCENSORED as a way of saying that that's irrelevant, and there is no point discussing irrelevancies. If your reason is that "other reliable sources use this other type of image", then the other editors should be willing to discuss whether this is the case, etc. and how much weight to attach to the facts.
I'm opposed to requiring the following of other sources because how much weight should be accorded to which sources, and how many and what type of sources are available will be very different across different subject areas. In the field of medicine, there are hundreds of years of a wide variety of sources, probably mainly unbiased, aimed at a wide variety of audiences in a wide variety of cultures, so any kind of consensus these sources show is probably worth at least serious consideration. The policy would also however apply to every other topic the encyclopaedia covers, and the same degree of reliable sourcing does not occur for subjects like religion (a great many contradictory partisan sources), human sexuality (greatly influenced by the widely disparaging approaches of different cultures temporally and spatially), internet shock sites (covered in far fewer sources due to subject matter and timespan), abortion (pretty much no consensus about whether it's good or bad), opposition to the war in Iraq (neutral sources far outweighed by partisan ones), the Libyan civil war (far too recent to have been covered by comparable reliable sources). Other reasons that might preclude reasonable comparison include a topic not being covered in general purpose reliable sources or being mostly or exclusively covered in non-illustrated media (perhaps due to age, culture or technology). Additionally all this can only show why certain images were used, never why others weren't. The more variety in coverage in a representative range of comparable uncensored reliable sources, the more important knowing what affected an image choice is.
In short, coverage in other comparable sources is one factor that is a useful input to deciding educational value in some discussions but not all - in some subject areas it will actually harm the encyclopaedia (we'd never be able to include an image of a recent event for example). Even where it is useful it can never be the whole story, as we are choosing images that illustrate our text not other sources' text. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting what those of us saying "follow the sources" imply. There is recognition that the availability of images in sources is going to vary field to field , topic to topic, and some may be better illustrated in sources than others. Some may not even be illustrated at all. The point of referring to sources is as a first step in the dispute of whether a certain type of image should be used or not. If there are a wide variety of sources, and they don't ever use a certain type of image, then we shouldn't be either; alternatively, if a wide variety of sources use an image that is otherwise controversial to some group, that doesn't prevent us from using that image. When there's only a few sources, or a lack of images to select from, and we can't extrapolate from other topics, then we can talk about using novel images with a common sense understanding of what will be patently offensive. We've never said that you can only use images that sources use, but this should be a very strong guidance for selection particularly when there is controversy over the offensiveness of image choice. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "Educational" is something that's likely to be even more debated than "incidental". For instance, I happen to be someone who is very verbally oriented; pictures don't help me much in most cases, and can't be said to be educational for me, whereas many other people are much more visually oriented, so pictures are educational for them. I also oppose non-protection of "incidental" images in any event, including if defined as "non-educational"; see the first RfC. Allens (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? By opposing this simple proposal, you are saying that "Objectionable material should get specialized treatment simply because some people find it objectionable." This proposal merely states that images/text/content needs to have valid reasons for inclusion or exclusion. NO material should get specialized treatment.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon16:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing image filter discussions on Meta
Latest comment: 12 years ago79 comments14 people in discussion
As Mathsci mentioned the image filter above, please note ongoing discussions on the Meta brainstorming page: [18]. Sue has made clear in Germany that there will be no category-based filter as originally envisioned. A proposal currently being discussed involves a personal filter list, much like our watchlists, where users specify images they want to have shown greyed by default (with a click being enough to display the image, and a click likewise being enough to grey any image and add it to the list). --JN46617:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because it is an opt-in filter (unlike Google Image Search, the default is unfiltered, per the Harris Report's recommendations). Having said that, there could be a button at the top of any Wikipedia page, enabling users to switch all images off (and then switch individual images back on that they would like to see). Users could go to Commons and select categories there without looking at their content in detail. Or they might be able to manually edit their filter list, just like you can manually edit your watchlist if you want to. Basically, there are two ways you can add and remove something from your watchlist: you can go the article and click on Watch/Unwatch, or you can open your watchlist and manually add and remove pages. The filter list could work the same way, allowing individual users to add and remove images (or Commons categories) from their personal list. This would also help with "surprising" Commons searches like the ones listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems – if I decide I don't want to see masturbation videos while looking for images of tennis ("Rückhand" is German for "backhand"), I can simply decide beforehand that all masturbation images that might come up in a search I do should first appear greyed, requiring another click to reveal. All that is better discussed over there though, as that is the page the developers will look at. -JN46617:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You're not kidding, are you? I'm stunned. OK. I'll go and read up the back story. I've read the Harris report but just skimmed the image filter stuff, so I'll re-read that. Was the decision to avoid categories made on that page you linked to, or should I start somewhere else? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Yep. That's the right response. I'm reading madly, but have to go to sleep now. I'm so looking forward to getting to grips with the reasoning behind this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The idea of an opt-out filter like you have in Google (i.e. default display is filtered, and people have to opt out of filtering to see everything) was rejected quite early on. Robert Harris was against it, and so is Sue, and so was the community in general. The idea is that people can switch a filter on if they want to, but the default remains unfiltered. In addition, the idea of a category-based filter was abandoned more recently, partly because of resistance in Germany (there was resistance to it on Foundation-l as well). Reasons include: the creation of filter categories and the amount of tagging that would be required would be a lot of work that could better be invested elsewhere, it would be extremely contentious, it would be well-nigh impossible to do it in a culturally neutral way, existing categories would not necessarily catch all instances of a particular type of content, it would invite gaming and vandalism, as well as reorganisation of categories to suit the needs of filter users rather than the primary needs of the project, and it would help censors by doing much of the work for them (censorious ISPs and countries could simply disable the reveal function, and images would be permanently inaccessible for everyone). Hence the shift to systems where the onus is on readers to define what they don't want to see. Advantages: no work for the community, Wikimedia is not taking "a side" in any cultural dispute, no undue help for censors. That's a short summary. There is much more in the Foundation list archives and on Meta talk pages. --JN46620:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If changing Wikipedia's content is an issue, you can just connect over HTTPS and then its impossible unless the users machine is hijacked.
With regards to content filtering straight blocking the URLs would be much easier to achieve, and if you really want to prevent people seeing certain content - well blocking the images isn't going to help as they can still see the text.
The only real use case would be hiding images of something like Muhammad, but they can probably manage to do that now on an article by article basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Um:
"there will be no category-based filter"
"Users could go to Commons and select categories"
Leaving aside the idiocy of expecting users to process several hundred thousand categories (current best estimate of the number of categories at Commons), one of these things is not like the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
But my point does illustrate that we could class images into categories and allow the user to select which ones they don't want to display with a sensible default.
That would allow people who don't want to be offended by images to filter them out, as well as allowing those who believe in freedom at any price to see as many explicit images as they like. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I was originally in favour of a category-based opt-out filter, as per Google or Flickr, but the reality is that there is so much resistance to the idea, and not just in Germany, that it would never fly. And I've come to appreciate the elegance of a solution that leaves it to readers to populate their filter lists, that does not cause the community any additional effort and strife about whether this image or video should be in a filterable category or not, and which avoids the possibility of the Foundation being accused of taking one culture's sensitivities into account, while neglecting those of another. The foundation and the editorship remain neutral, out of it, and readers can filter whatever they like. As for the initial effort imposed on people who would like to filter images and media, I am 100% certain that given this functionality, various individuals and groups would come forward and compile lists according to different criteria, and that readers who agree with those criteria could be enabled to use them to populate their personal filter lists. And so they should. A personal filter list should be as much a private affair for the reader as an editor's watchlist. It's their decision what they want to see, just as it is their decision which articles they choose to read in the first place. --JN46601:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The idea of a personal filter list does seem to be a good solution, if that is now what WMF is suggesting. But I also hope that with the filter there is the possibility that individual pages, where image problems have been identified, can activate "filter alert" questions about filtering. A feature like that would certainly avoid the need for interminable discussions on particular images. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There won't be a filter alert, as that would involve a categorisation decision that a page would be suitable for filtering (which could be non-neutral, contentious, etc. ...). But there might be a button enabling images to be switched off that appears on any page. Best to discuss on Meta. --JN46606:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"Irrationality" of offence
One thing I see a lot of people saying is that offence is irrational and/or shouldn't be taken into account.
However even editors on Wikipedia regularly act in an irrational way. When discussing changes you only ever see an extremely small number of people ever change their minds. You'd have thought that when presenting good evidence that you'd be able to persuade a decent proportion of the audience to change their mind - but the reality is that generally people only change their mind over a long time period - which means they avoid losing face.
If you go into a discussion, whatever it is, with an open mind and are prepared to change your mind then you get to be right more often as you are judging the decision on its merits - I don't always do this, but its good when you do.
If someone presents a strong case and you change your mind you actually look much better than if you hang on to the bitter end - and discussions become much more productive - its a win on many levels - and yet people in general are still reluctant to do it.
The thing is that people are people and they are offended by stuff - and trying to say that isn't legitimate than saying people not being prepared to change their minds isn't legitimate - when the reality is that people don't change their mind publicly and we have to accept that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, eraserhead, the levels of irrationality on this issue are astoundingly deep. I'm still laughing over the inability of people to distinguish between personal offense (an intrinsically subjective emotional state) and offense against social mores (objective and systematically defined prohibitions instituted by cultures, faiths, and other long-established social entities). That kind of methodological individualism died a horrible death at the hands of sociologists in the 80's or 90's, so seeing it reasserted here (in this nearly psychedelic form) is just too funny for words.
I swear, I'm inclined to make up a humorous 'Welcome to Wikipedia!' template, instructing editors to leave all sense of proportion and decency off project, because it violates our sole core principle of being not censored. --Ludwigs223:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2—we are not beholden to parochial interests. I think that we aim to be educational and informative and we try not to compromise on that every time someone says that they are "offended". Concerning images there are many more things that can be said about them other than that they support my worldview (or stand in opposition to my worldview). They contain visual elements and they bear a relationship to a particular article. That could be a constructive relationship or that could be one that detracts from the article or is irrelevant to the article. "Wikipedia is not censored" only rules out one type of argument, and only to a certain extent—though to a considerable extent. Inexplicably that seems to be the only argument (concerning the inclusion and omitting of images) that some are intent on railing against. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop - and AGAIN, you confound personal offense with cultural standards. are you doing that on purpose for effect, or do you really not understand thee difference? As I've said previously, you simply refuse to accept that I'm making any argument other than an offense argument, so this whole discussion becomes painfully circular: it's just aggravating to have you tell me I'm making an argument I'm not making, just so you can shoot it down with NOTCENSORED. --Ludwigs204:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead, your screed boils down to "my point-of-view is so right, my evidence and opinions so astoundingly awesome, that anyone who doesn't sing Hallelujah and jump to my side as soon as I finish uttering the last syllable must be a moron". Ludwigs has been peddling this for about a month now as well, and while many other editors have expressed disgust and a bit of anger at being belittled in this manner, personally the most I can muster is amusement and pity. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm perfectly happy to change my opinion when I read a convincing argument. However, not once in all these reams of discussion have I seen a convincing argument. I've seen the same two or three completely unconvincing (and repeatedly demolished) reasons an uncountable number of times, and I've seen a similarly countless number of failures to answer questions asked by those who do not support the proposed changes.
Regarding the other point, the core principles of Wikipedia WP:5P 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. 2: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. 3: Wikipedia is Free content. 4: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. 5: Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
WP:NOTCENSORED is a direct result of the second of those principles; it is not possible to separate the two. We have only three options when it comes to censorship:
censor some things and become a POV encyclopaedia, because we would be promoting our opinions about what should be/shouldn't be filtered.
censor everything and serve only blank pages, consequently ceasing to be an encyclopaedia (and debatably cease to be Free content, but that's a philosophical debate not relevant to this discussion)
censor nothing, being neutral to every opinion about what is and is not offensive.
Aside from causing those already involved to "change their minds" we can hope to bring others into the discussion and we can endeavor to bring them to support our view on the issue under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You forgot "4. Follow reputable sources." Which is actually what we do around here, according to the second pillar. --JN46602:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That would just be a method of choosing which things to censor and which things not to - i.e. option one. It would be POV based on our selection of sources to follow - again the only options are "some", "all" or "none". We can't follow all of them and include images, because there are many reliable sources that are text only, and you can only include an image or not include it so you can't say 55% of sources include a nude image, 20% a model wearing western clothing, 20% no image and 5% wearing a hijab, so we'll have 80% of an image that is 20% clothed with ¼ of the clothes being a hijab. This leaves the option of following no source's censorship regime (i.e. as at present, NOTCENSORED) or following the censorship policy of some reliable sources - which of necessity involves making a POV choice about which censorship is best. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You lack imagination, and seem to be obsessed with censorship: i.e. you seem to start from the position that an offensive image is present, and now we have to wonder whether to remove it or not. Instead, think positively. Start with a clean slate and think about common depictions of women in reliable sources. That's the kind of images we want to include. The idea is simply to reflect how women are most commonly represented in reputable, generic sources. There will be different races, different styles of dress, different ages, and so forth. We shouldn't have all Playboy models (and then argue we can't remove any of them because "we are not censored"), and we shouldn't have all nuns. It should just be a good mix, without overemphasising or underrepresenting any type of image. The article woman actually does a pretty fine job of this. --JN46603:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that we are opportunistic in our use of sources. We derive from sources what we think will contribute to an article. We don't derive from sources that which is not explicitly stated and we don't extract all that may be available. No source ever says that an image should not be used in proximity to some type of subject matter. It is a flimsy argument that is being advanced by some editors. The convoluted reasoning of the argument being advanced by some editors is that the precedent set by the absence of an image in a source somehow translates into a prohibition on our using that image in proximity to that subject matter. But of course the source never says that the image in question should not be used in proximity to that textural subject matter. All that is known to us is that the source did not use the image in question, and I don't think that provides us with particularly strong guidance. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No source ever says that an image should not be used in proximity to some type of subject matter. It is a flimsy argument that is being advanced by some editors. That's not what is being argued. If a non-fringe-y number of sources use a type of image for illustrating a specific topic, then we can consider the use of that type of image for our topic, but we are not bound to only that if there are multiple types offered across the sources. What we are saying is that if we try to use a type of image that no source, within their technical ability, opts to use, then we should not be using that either as it is introducing a unique form of presentation of a topic and thus OR. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
But it has already been said that sources which publish "titilating" images are not going to be considered, because they can't be reliable if they use those sorts of pictures. So presumably a source that shows an image you don't approve of will be too "fringe-y"? Also, it doesn't matter how many sources you look at, you still can't prove a negative. You also cannot know why a source didn't use an image - as I said above it could be technical, legal, monetary (royalties, etc), space, lack of availability, internal (publisher,etc) regulations, external (government, etc) regulations, commercial reasons, political/moral/religeous issues regarding the target market, personal preference between two specific photographs, etc. To give an accurate assessment of whether any of these were possible factors you will need to know, at least
the other images available
the economic and regulatory conditions (including printing costs, the price of paper, etc)
the moral attitudes of author(s), editor(s), publishers and the target audience (including market research about them) at the specific time of publishing for the specific locale of printing, publishing and target audience(s).
the attitudes of the popular press in the above areas too, making note of any recent scandals, etc.
If you are dealing with online sources, don't forget to read the ISP's terms of service - the ones that were relevant at the time of publishing of course, not necessarily the ones in force today.
Once you have got all this information, soured of course from reliable sources (independent of the publisher in question, of course, for the information not related to that specific publisher), remembering that in certain times even a couple of weeks or months can change societal attitudes (e.g. Tunisia today compared with Tunisia a year ago) or even days in extreme cases (c.f. 2001 Clear Channel memorandum)
...then you can make a guess at how much weight each of these factors were given in the choice of image. Then you can do the same for the second source. Thryduulf (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You're twisting the arguments. First, to address the fact that we don't know why a source may have not chosen to use an image or not, it is the same rationales for exclusion per WP:OR that we make if sources don't publish a "known" fact. If all sources refuse to print a specific type of image, we cannot introduce that type of image into WP without creating OR; it doesn't matter how or why.
There is a far far difference between a source that publishes images for specific purpose of titilating the audience, verses sources that publish questionable images for purposes of educational merit. I would not call a book on human anatomy a source with "titilating" images, for example.
We're not trying to prove a negative: we want to use images that have been positively identified in reliable sources.
Basically, this all comes down to common sense, again. Like for all other aspects of WP where we use sources to guide the content, we make intelligent decisions when the sources are inconclusive or indecisive in their approach, using a fair amount of common sense. The types of arguments going on here are getting very wikilawyering, wanting exact numbers, exact definitions, and the like, but that is not the Wiki way. The baseline of starting with what sources uses at least sets what are the best likely image choices, from there consensus to whittle down the selection, or to verve from the sources if there is good reason too. That's it. It's very simple. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Religious perspectives should never be included in the editorial policies of a secular encyclopedia. They are fine as subject matter, but not as a portion of our decision making process. Because of that, religious based offense simply doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. That isn't a matter of persuasiveness or open-mindedeness, it's a necessary component of what the project is: a secular encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I simply disagree that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia in the way you seem to mean it. That is nowhere in policy, and impossible to justify using reason or common sense. Wikipedia is Neutral, not Secular, and the difference between those is huge. --Ludwigs205:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because its not written down means its not a tenet we follow. To be neutral in our coverage of religion (or lack of religion), we have to be secular and approach the topics off-handed without bias. That simply follows from policy. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
@Directly above, very little "religious" censorship is taken seriously by sources outside the individual religion. Images of dead aborigines and Muhammad are essentially exceptions to the rule.
@Tarc, I'm not trying to say that my arguments are so persuasive that you should switch sides, or that they are necessarily particularly persuasive in this case - or that I am even particularly good at changing my mind when faced with evidence. The issue is that regardless of who brings up the argument, or what the discussion is, very few people are prepared to explicitly switch sides.
It also happens in the "real world" with politicians finding it hard to admit they are wrong, or with ordinary people not changing their minds when evidence is presented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You just proved my point by repeating just what I said you did the first time. Let me make this clear to you; I have seen your evidence, and I reject it. That isn't hard-headed or stubborn, it is simply that I am quite comfortable with my position on the matter and how I arrived at it. I decline to "switch sides" on this matter not because I fail to understand you position, but rather that I find your "side" to be extremely unappealing. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine. That's very exciting. The point still stands that a large percentage of the time people refuse to switch sides in debates out of stubbornness to avoid "losing face" which is just as irrational as "offence" - and yet even on Wikipedia, where you claim offence has no place "losing face" clearly has a large place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
People use the word "secular" in different ways. Wikipedia is secular in the sense of being neutral on religious matters. It is not secular in the sense of covering religious topics primarily from a scientific point of view. HansAdler08:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I see it as we are trying to take a factual scientific approach to articles, seeing how scientific approaches themselves tend to be relatively neutral (the good ones anyways.) We aren't looking for an end result we are working the progress as we go. NOTCENSORED means the community doesn't change for a specific groups interests and I think it is a principle worth fighting for. Censorship dressed up as not offending a group, people, organization, etc etc ad nausem is still censorship. I believe Voltaire said it best "I do not agree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or in this case show it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies on the quote since it is not definitively attributed to Voltaire. Most people attribute it to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, though it is a summation of his belief.Tivanir2 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
We're not neutral on religious matters and can't be. Like all encyclopedias, the Wikipedia is an Enlightenment institution. As such we are inherently and by nature ranged in opposition to ignorance, superstition, enslavement of the human mind, and clerical tyranny. (If we're quoting, Denis Diderot, the founder of the encyclopedic movement and as such our spiritual father, said "I would see the the last king strangled with the entrails of the last priest"). In the developed world the priests are at bay (for the moment), but not in a lot of the Muslim world. This is why deferring to sensibilities regarding pictures of Mohammed in particular sticks in my craw. On one level, there is sincerely held individual belief. On another level, clerical tyranny, assertive superstition, and mechanisms of social and political control over intellectual life by imams and mullahs are part of the larger picture on this subject, too. Failure to address this and make a cogent argument as to why Diderot's children should defer to this is likely leave cold me and many other adherents of the encyclopedic movement. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
@Herostratus: NPOV is one of the five core principles of Wikipedia. If you assert that it doesn't apply to religious articles, then we all might as well pack up the project and go home, because we are no longer writing the encyclopedia we think we are writing. We must be neutral, above all else; if we can't be, we're just another dumb propaganda rag.
@Tivanir2: that is NOT what NOTCENSORED ever meant. NOTCENSORED is supposed to keep pertinent material from being removed for trivial reasons; it is not supposed to keep trivial material from being removed against credible reasons. You are making a nonsense argument, and making it repeatedly. Please stop. --Ludwigs201:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Since this is, by my rough guesstimation, the 861st time you have said it, yes we understand your position on "not censored" by now. And while on its face that statement may be correct, the problem here is your definition of "trivial material" is being used to mean "images you do not like". That is what is unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
863rd, actually, mostly because people like you keep insisting that I'm saying something that I'm not. I don't actually have any problem with any of the images I've talked about (except the Goatse.cx image, which I thought was stupidly gross - as it was intended to be), I just think they are inappropriate images for an encyclopedia. But I do understand your position: you don't actually have a credible argument to make, so you have to mangle my argument in order to make it look as stupid as your own. sad reflection on you, that. --Ludwigs204:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your own words work against you; quote, "it is not supposed to keep trivial material from being removed against credible reasons". You have made this claim numerous times and it has been rejected numerous times. It takes different forms; sometimes it is images that are "incidental", sometimes it is "gratuitous offensiveness", today it is "trivial material". You argue that images that potentially offensive images that are trivial or not needed in the article should be deleted. But claiming triviality is a matter of opinion, and in the case of the Muhammad article for example, you are in the minority on that point. I don't argue against anything other than your own words. You can't hide from them, there's no Orwellian Memory Hole that you can conveniently toss them down. Sorry. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, Tarc: I understand that you think you are being fair and balanced - a kind of 'screw everyone equally' attitude that would pass for a kind of rough-and-tumble neutrality if in fact it actually worked the way you think it does. I can respect it as far as it goes, but I really get sick of the way you fuck around with reason. You know what I'm saying as well as I do, you simply refuse to face it. I'm always saying the same thing - that there is a difference between images that are necessary to an article and images that are helpful but more-or-less replaceable - and I only use different words because different approaches help people understand the issue.
You're an intellectual coward, Tarc: you refuse to discuss the issue fairly, and instead try to twist what I say into some form that's dumb enough for you to bitch and moan about. Why are you bothering? I mean, I'm happy to have you continue, because you bad attitude only works in favor of our arguments - no one who's not already firmly in your camp is going to sympathize with the aggressive nonsense you pour out - But I would really rather get past this idiotic fist-thumping crap and actually discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss the issues, well, you've made your point, now back off and let the people who actually want to listen to each other have a shot at the discussion. You can always come back and yell at us some more later.--Ludwigs207:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
@Herostratus: There is the tyrannical motive, and genuine offense (artists' impressions of Muhammad genuinely offend most Muslims). Reducing the number of such images where they're not necessary would be both responding to priestly diktat and taking account of the genuine sensibilities of many readers. I understand that historically our revulsion at appeasing tyranny has overridden concern about disaffecting readers. But I've come to the conclusion that, as a default position, this is a mistake. I believe we should usually avoid offending large numbers of readers where this can be done without really diminishing the educational value of an article.
I feel that feeling in the craw. But I take comfort from the fact that Depictions of Muhammad will necessarily be bulging with more than enough offensive images to give a serious middle finger to the priests. Putting six such images in Muhammad, though, where such images are not the topic of the article, and most are there because editors think they look nice, or they are making a point about free speech, is gratuitous offense. We can exercise sensitivity and respect for the feelings of our readers by using such images only where they're important pedagogically, in the section Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad for instance, and not rubbing their noses in anachronistic and culturally inaccurate "illustrations" of myths and events.
Ludwigs2 seems to be arguing that because feelings like embarrassment and insult are subjective, we should ignore them in our readers, and heed the measurable cultural norms that have evolved to take account of those feelings in human intercourse. Here he represents the cutting edge of psychological and social science, something he traces back as far as the nineteen eighties. Actually it stems from the general repudiation of phenomenology in the early twentieth century and is the founding flaw of both behaviourism and cognitivsm. Ignoring feelings in science is foolishness of the highest order and leads to cultish nonsense like most psychoanalysis and Skinnerism. Please feel free to be human. If you know enough about Islam or religious belief to be able to, please empathise with a typical Muslim reading Muhammad. Do you feel insulted by the gratuitousness of most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sweet jesus, What kind of touchy-feely nonsense is this? Now editors should emphasize with the poor religious fundamentalists who demand that those of other faiths bend to their views? Not only "no" but "hell no". Tarc (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You know, Tarc, there is some middle ground between spitting on people's beliefs and sucking their d@cks. You may not see it, but it does exist. --Ludwigs204:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's amusement to be found in both the interesting mental imagery there, and in the fact that you believe in censorship so much that you just did it to yourself...saying "no, we will not conform the project to your religious beliefs" does not equate to spitting on said beliefs. I have no doubt some have arrived at such an irrational conclusion...lord knows the likes of you have...but in the end, it is negligible. Tarc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There certainly is a middle ground, Ludwigs2. It's exactly what I've been advocating: ignoring their beliefs completely.—Kww(talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I fell into the trap of continuing in form. Would "ignore all religious beliefs from everyone everywhere" sound less like and "us and them" mentality?—Kww(talk) 05:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
No that's still 'us' (wikipedia) vs them (religions). The simple act of saying 'we ignore X' implies that X is not us and that X is not worthy of being part of us. it's inherently and unavoidably divisive.
I find it deeply disturbing that anti-religious sentiment is this intense on project. You collectively seem incapable of distinguishing between religion and religious extremism, and attack both indiscriminately. --Ludwigs213:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't attacked anyone, participated in an attack, or endorsed an attack. I've been explicit in stating that images intended to attack a religious group still count as attacks and need to be removed. There's a large, large difference between ignoring a belief and attacking it. The problem is not one of distinguishing between religion and religious extremism, it's in simply noting that religion is irrelevant to a secular project.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
But in fact, you have attacked religious beliefs, simply by asserting that they have absolutely no value on project. You are vocally of the opinion that any excuse for using an image is sufficient to override any opposition which is in any way associated with religion. Neo-nazis and living serial killers have more protection on project than established religions, at least according to your logic. it's patently absurd and deeply prejudiced. You may not realize how absurd and prejudiced it is, but that doesn't make it any less so. --Ludwigs217:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Imagery and words are two different things. With words one can make assertions. One's choice of imagery is in part a matter of taste plus other considerations. We are not bound by the precedent set by other sources of information as to the images with which we illustrate articles. The option to choose images is protected by the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. We obviously should not be aiming for tastelessness, or, to state that in positive terms we should be aiming to be tasteful. But even more important than any considerations concerning matters of taste are those matters of clear communication and being informative, educational, understandable. We have talented editors here. We don't have to opt for poorer choices in imagery as might be found in reliable sources when our own editors present better choices. We cannot know what reasoning went into the choice of images to illustrate articles elsewhere—and it doesn't matter. Some editors here are arguing that the choice of imagery exhibited elsewhere is indicative of "good taste". Two points: we haven't the foggiest idea what it is indicative of; and if it is indicative of "good taste" we don't have to follow the example set at that source due to our own policy which says that "Wikipedia is not censored." What we do have to be concerned with is the identity of the image that we choose to use. We don't want to use a photo (or other image) that is not what we purport it to be. That would be a big booboo. Images in most instances do not make assertions but there can be exceptions to that—for instance words can be found within images and consequently such an image can be assertive. Additionally even completely nonverbal images can in some (rare) circumstances be argued to be making assertions. I am not going to comment on that. I think that is a valid area discussion. But the proper place for that discussion is on article Talk pages where disputes over images are taking place. I clearly do not favor the suggested change in policy, whereby we would be expected to take our pick among the images used by sources. The choice of imagery an article employs involves considerations that our own editors are more than capable of addressing. These are considerations particular to our article. Clear communication of abundant information,visually, should be at the forefront of those considerations in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Ludwigs2, I have stated that all images should be subject to exactly the same editorial decision making process without regard to whether they cause an offense based on religious grounds. For someone so eager to point out how others are twisting your words, you seem quite eager to distort mine.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are certain religious beliefs that society at large respects and there are certain ones that aren't respected as much. To take an example of a minor religion being followed dead Aboriginal skulls are returned for burial. However this doesn't mean that non-aboriginal skulls aren't continued to be displayed - which I'm sure more extreme aborigines believe.
So you would subject religious beliefs to a popularity test? On what other basis would would you argue that one religious belief was more or less important than another? I can piss off a member of a small sect with impunity, but I have to be careful about Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians, because there are enough of them that they get published?—Kww(talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
No I'd subject them to the standards followed by our reliable sources - as I mentioned in my previous post, so I'm rather surprised you missed it.
Of note these standards only ever apply internally to the religion, there is no serious argument that images of Jesus should be covered to avoid offending the muslims, even though like Muhammad he is a prophet for Islam, and images of Jesus almost certainly wouldn't appear inside a mosque either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
@Kww: You can keep expanding the list of groups we don't listen too indefinitely, but you are still setting up an 'us vs. them' context. So now are you saying that anyone who is offended by anything should not be listened to? if that's what you're implying, then you are effectively saying that we should ignore everyone who disagrees with you, because there does not seem to be any criteria except that you personally do not find the material offensive. In fact, since we can always find someone who doesn't find a given image offensive, we can add just about any image anywhere and protect it with notcensored, since the people who are offended by it won't count. so, let's change the lead image of human sexuality to an image of coprophilia or necrophilia (or even necrophagia), because those are all notable sexual tendencies, and wikipedia is not censored. If I'm misrepresenting your position, my apologies: I'm happy to reassess as you explain yourself more clearly, but as of this moment it doesn't appear that you've thought through your own logic.
@Bus stop: I cannot believe that you just said images cannot be used to make assertions; that's utterly senseless. are you suggesting that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons made no assertions? that the host of political cartoons you can find in newspapers don't make assertions? that the images of dismembered fetuses shown at abortion rallies aren't an effort to make an assertion? Images are FAR MORE POWERFUL communicators that words, because they bypass the critical filters that are in place when reading written text.
Besides, you are contradicting yourself. If images do not make assertions then they have no encyclopedic value (they are all purely decorative) and then we should clearly remove offensive imagery. further, you say "choice of imagery is in part a matter of taste plus other considerations", but then you go on to preclude all 'other considerations', which seems to imply that it's solely a matter of taste. so why is your taste in images protected where a Muslim editor's taste in images is precluded? you're talking in circles.
You guys are trying very hard to protect the wrong principle and it's tying you up in logical knots. think it through, please. --Ludwigs219:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs—I am addressing a proposal. Here is a link to that proposal. The proposal reads:
"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."
Actually I am only addressing the part of the above proposal which reads:
"…in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."
I am arguing that any image can be considered for inclusion in an article. Correct me if I am wrong but you are arguing that only those images found in reliable sources can be considered for inclusion in an article. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong about what I want (this is not my proposal anyway), wrong about what the proposal says, and wrong about the nature of the problem that we are trying to resolve here. allow me to clarify:
I personally believe that any image can be considered for inclusions. I also believe that any included image can be considered for removal.
The first is the current norm; we can argue for the inclusion of any image
The second is currently untrue: NOTCENSORED is frequently used to block all discussion of the removal of certain class of images.
given that there is an irrational level of conflict over the second point, this proposal aims to change the first point, to keep people from stuffing articles full of unnecessary controversial images (with the consequent screams of bloody murder about censorship when anyone tries to remove them).
Images in reliable sources may not be a perfect metric, but at least it gives a guideline for what kinds of images are generally considered appropriate, and helps prevent us from getting into these mulish debates. --Ludwigs221:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Ludwigs2, I haven't tied myself into any "logical knots" at all, and have resisted the ones you try to impose on me. It's very reasonable, simple and consistent to ignore all religious thought in the formation of editorial policy.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of those do not address the point I am making, except for Piss Christ, which I would argue was intended as an attack image in the first place. A picture of Mohammed by an artist devoted to Mohammed, intended to illustrate an event in Mohammed's life, is hard to perceive as being intended to attack. It would be nice if we could discuss the other images in a general case without having to deal with it as a wedge issue. That's the real problem: any language that has been proposed is going to be used to champion a completely unacceptable consequence. I'm happy to support language about offensiveness and shock value so long as offense based in a religious belief is explicitly excluded from consideration.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It is true that only Piss Christ is the only religious example, but from the article "Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture." - so the artist doesn't intend it as an attack, but rather a criticism of the commercialisation of Christianity. EDIT: To expand, if you still feel it would be inappropriate because you view it as an attack, well given how well known it is that Muhammad images are offensive to Sunni muslims from that side of the table you could make a similar argument about images of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1—I think that under discussion is whether we should have language written into policy which rules out for inclusion in our articles those images which are not found in those reliable sources which treat the same subject matter as our article but in text form. The proposal is for the limiting of images for possible use to those found in the reliable sources that address the same subject matter as our article. I don't think it's a good proposal. I think that we have good editors here. I think some of our editors are better than the editors found at a variety of sources. At the least I think that some of our editors are the equal of those found at sources. It is important to take note of something: images are not words. Images and words are two different sorts of entities. The proposal rules out for consideration an incalculable number of images, some of which are inevitably going to represent better choices than those found at the sources that we would be forced to pick among. Arguably a good image could even be found at a source on an unrelated topic, or a topic somewhat removed from the specific topic of the article under consideration. The right place for discussing images is on article Talk pages. All images should be open to discussion. The proposal has the downside of ruling out too many images, some of which might be very good images for the purposes of our article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd like you to answer my question about you view as to whether the images I have suggested are acceptable for inclusion in the relevant articles. You have claimed that offensiveness should have no place in image choice on the project - if you really believe that you should have no issue supporting the inclusion of the images I have used as examples above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1—in response to this post I would say that all such questions are to be addressed on the relevant Talk pages. You say in that post:
"@BusStop @Kww, are you arguing that an image of coprophilia or necrophilia (or even necrophagia) would be an appropriate lead image on human sexuality? Would you consider Piss Christ to be an appropriate lead image on Jesus? or a burning American flag to be appropriate for the lead image on United States?"
Has anybody suggested that those images be used at those articles? Have I suggested anything like that? No—of course I have not. But let us suppose for argument's sake someone did suggest the above images for those articles. Do you think that consensus opinion would be reached favoring the inclusion of that imagery? I don't think so. That is why I said in my first paragraph of this post that any such questions should be addressed at the relevant article's Talk page. What you are doing is presenting hypothetical situations—but those situations are not realistic. Such situations, were they to occur, would be resolved in an instant. If such images were suggested, they would immediately be rejected by 99% of Wikipedia editors. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I think some of our editors are better than the editors found at a variety of sources. is a complete contradiction of what it means to be a tertiary source. We cannot exceed what other sources already do when they do use imagery to represent a topic, just as we cannot establish conclusions that aren't already in existing sources. Images are just as powerful in terms of providing opinions and certain points of view in addition to education value. Hence, when we use a type of image not found in the types of images already used in sources, we are potentially introducing bias that should not be in a tertiary source. This is why the first question asked when there is a debate over the types of images being used or not being used needs to start with reviewing what image types are used in sources. Then the question of whether there are valid claims of objectionable content vs education value can be asked, but not before then. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Masem—as a general rule, though there are exceptions, words need verification in reliable sources; images do not. We make editorial choices concerning images that don't necessarily require reliable sources connecting the image to the subject of the article, as long as the identity of the image is absolutely known. You and others are presenting the argument that certain images are found in sources that are very much on the same topic as our article. That is a valid argument on the face of it and at first glance. But other editors may not find that argument convincing or persuasive for a variety of reasons. That is why there is no cause for codifying it into policy. It is an argument best made on an article Talk page. We should not be elevating one argument above all others in the way that you and several other editors are suggesting. Sources may not have the same scope as our article. Sources may not have the same policies at their point of origin as our site has. We have a policy that tends to disregard the parochial interests of some subsets of people. Our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED tends to bypass the niceties that other sources may incorporate into their presentation of material. We are certainly not permitted to assert in words that which cannot be verified in sources. But the swapping out of images for ones that we, for a variety of reasons may find preferable, is oftentimes acceptable. These are matters for article Talk pages. It may be time-consuming. But the solution should not be to offer a non-level playing field to future editors. Bus stop (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what policies or restrictions or ultimate goals our for the sources; we as a tertiary source have to provide an unbiased approach to a topic that is demonstrated by sources. That is not just in textual facts, but in the selection of images. If we know that sources have two or more opposing viewpoints and thus provide two or more different approaches to images, we have to consider all options. It is that straight forward. Creating a new type of image that has never been used in conjunction with that topic or similar topics is original research, and while in some cases SYNTH applies (creating a visual timeline of events is likely not going to be contested), in most cases this will be inappropriate research to push a specific viewpoint through. There may be extreme cases where we have to look past the sources, but this must still be a first step before doing so. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Masem—this is also about retaining options. The proposed policy change would limit our options in imagery. The proposed policy language would limit discussion over images. Yes the discussions over images at article Talk pages have been time-consuming, but images are important. Articles can be written without images—but the importance of images can't be overestimated. The proposed policy change would have the effect of ruling out potential great improvements to articles via the use of the best image. This would be done on the basically arbitrary notion that a source deemed to be similar to our article did not use that image. It is not at all clear what similar to our article might mean. That would be a new area of dispute, in my opinion. But that is not what should be in dispute. We should be discussing images purely on the merits of the specific images and in relation to the article. The argument that certain sources use similar or dissimilar images can be introduced into the discussion at article Talk pages, but that argument is hardly a cogent enough argument to warrant being written into policy. Images are substitutable by other images in many if not most cases. Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As you guys have failed to accept the "suggestions" I have made, you clearly feel at some point there is a line where offensiveness comes into play, which is a perfectly acceptable position to hold and one which we can reach some kind of compromise on.
Its not as if the "suggestions" I have made are significantly more controversial or unfair than the points raised as possibly dubious in the RFC, such as the images as pregnancy, Muhammad and Goatse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your statement is incorrect. There is never a time when "offensiveness" is a relevant factor in determining whether to use an image or not use an image because it is, and I regret the need to repeat this yet again, irrelevant. You appear once again to be refusing to listen to those you don't agree with. That images on almost every article are ones that you don't find offensive is simply because such images are irrelevant to almost every article. Equally most gratuitous images have very little educational value, so there are other images in use without controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As for making the same argument repeatedly it is because individuals use the same attacks repeatedly that are rejected based on policy. Everything I am remarking about fits policy perfectly and shows where I stand, with my beliefs simply being "We do not censor our information for the gains of any particular group." I am not going to back down on a subject because people don't like hearing that policy aligns with my own belief. I have no issues with people being offensive (since if someone is offending me I have the choice to either continue being offended or walk away) and if it really is an issue I either walk away or tune them out. I am of the firm belief that a person who is offended shouldn't do what offends them kind of like if you don't like being burned stop putting your hand on the damn stove. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Polls on Wikipedia?
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
In a number of articles, daily, weekly and monthly poll results are added, etc. I suggest that we add WP:NOTDAILYPOLL here -- that is, unless a poll has specific significance in an historical context, or is very widely reported (that is - not relying on a press release type of article or, worse, the polling organization's own site) that Wikipedia should avoid giving poll results as being, at best, ephemeral, and, at worst, misleading. Anything else which fits into this category? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding exactly what you're proposing. In certain circumstances poll results, presented properly, are very useful and encyclopaedic information, most notably polls demonstrating the relative strengths of parties/candidates in the run up to a major election. See for example United Kingdom general election, 2010#Polling. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Without multiple examples of where this is a problem that needs to be solved, the proposal has no foundation. And if examples are provided, why do existing policies/guidelines/essays not work? And, why the need for "very widely reported", why is it not sufficient for one reliable source to repeat the polling? Like any other potentially inaccurate but verifiable material from a reliable source, the only reason to not report the information is because it is insignificant—if editors have concerns about the accuracy and still think the material is more than insignificant, in-line attribution should be used rather than Wikipedia's voice. Do we have a current essay about the problems with using polling data? Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Next year is an election year in a major English-speaking country, so the following problems will get much worse. Whether this is the place to do it is less clear, but where else?
One obvious way to bias the article on a current political contest, or on one politician in that contest, is to include only the polls which are outliers, favoring one side more than average. In some cases, this can be done by picking your pollster carefully. This is difficult to balance; putting in all the polls makes an unreadable article.
Even if not done to bias the article, including poll results on an on-going contest tends to make an article which has more about the ups and downs of the contest than about the final results; in ten years' time, this will be a very boring article. This table probably contains more than any reader will want to know; but some articles have a stubby paragraph for each poll result. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Danish example you quote has a lot of potential usefulness to future researchers. The points about selecting the polls to be used comes under WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If an article is becoming heavily concentrated on the ongoing contest then consider WP:SPLITting. If we don't have one already, then I think there would be great benefit in developing a style guideline for election articles - I notice we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, and the talk page of that project would seem to be a great place to start a collaboration on such. I think the issue of polls is far to specific and nuanced for WP:NOT. I'll let the project know about this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As an Australian I watch Next Australian federal election with interest. IMHO polls are extensively over-reported in that article. Around a quarter of it is given over to poll results since the last election a year ago. The next election isn't due for another two years. By that time, if the trend continues, more than half the article will be historical poll results. It's a nonsense. It's of interest to only a tiny proportion of readers who can obviously find that information elsewhere if they need to satisfy their obsession. Right now it's clogging the article with undue garbage. I suspect the same applies elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
What you need to do is discuss your concerns on the talk page. Daily polls in the week before an election are more relevant than daily polls two years out, generally speaking. It's this last bit that makes it an unsuitable candidate for WP:NOT in my opinion - there are too many shades of grey and it varies too much with time and place. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned about that article but I really used that as an example of a broader problem. I'm uncomfortable about a lot of the polling reported in Wikipedia. Most people don't understand what makes a reliable poll. Personally, I don't believe any poll should be used unless we know the precise questions asked, who was asked, and in what context. That's a possibly extreme position, I know, but it's mine. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds to me like there is a need for a guide to polls in general with country sections detailing which polls are generally considered reliable/unreliable and why. The place for such a guide is probably as part of the WikiProject linked above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
But there is also a need for fewer polls. Setting aside all questions of bias, they get added one by one as the campaign proceeds and they never get taken out. On consideration, the operative section is probably WP:INDISCRIMINATE; adding excessive polls as an example would satisfy much of the concern here, and leave it a matter of talk page discussion whether any given article had become excessive. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
--Ludwigs2 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
--Ludwigs2 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
