Goatse on WP Options

[CharlotteWebb]

I find myself forced to withhold my opinion on-wiki in disputes like this because of the possibility that they some aspect of them may come to arbitration. I refer to this occasionally as the Miltopia Effect, after the former WR contributor who predicted that exactly this would happen.

Predicted a goatse RFAR?

[Ottava]

Am I the only one who thinks it should be deleted simply because of the shady licensing of it? We don't know the author, or who even has legal rights to it. I don't really like the random anonymous images (which represents all of the sexual images that are not of Shankbone, which is 10% of the sexual images).

[Newyorkbrad]

I find myself forced to withhold my opinion on-wiki in disputes like this because of the possibility that they some aspect of them may come to arbitration. I refer to this occasionally as the Miltopia Effect, after the former WR contributor who predicted that exactly this would happen.

Predicted a goatse RFAR?

No, predicted that whatever useful influence I might previously have had on noticeboards would be impaired for as long as I was sitting as an arbitrator. (And the same for some of the other arbs.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

No, predicted that whatever useful influence I might previously have had on noticeboards would be impaired for as long as I was sitting as an arbitrator. (And the same for some of the other arbs.)

That's why I took the precaution of never exercising any useful influence. Or influence of any other kind, really.

[Krimpet]

Am I the only one who thinks it should be deleted simply because of the shady licensing of it? We don't know the author, or who even has legal rights to it. I don't really like the random anonymous images (which represents all of the sexual images that are not of Shankbone, which is 10% of the sexual images).

The picture isn't even of the original, now-dead site; it's of an almost-mirror "goatse.fr" that's not exactly the same as the original. Making the fair-use justification even more dubious.

[Somey]

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

But why? Why is that stated as some sort of common-sense/logical truism? It's the internet - people can click on a link to the image if they want to see it. What's the big deal?

Obviously I don't fully understand the reasoning for having the article itself either, nor do I see the encyclopedic value in documenting the "world's most notable anus" any more than I would necessarily see the value in documenting the "world's most notable pancreas" or the "world's most notable garbage bin." There's a reason why some things don't get documented in an encyclopedia - it's because some things don't matter. I understand the bit about lack of space limitations, yada yada yada, and I could almost see having the article purely as an explanation for an internet-culture reference, but to insist that it has to be illustrated is like a denial of the medium's potential. It just isn't required, and given that it's utterly grotesque, why do it, unless grotesqueness is the very purpose and goal of the enterprise?

[Alison]

Am I the only one who thinks it should be deleted simply because of the shady licensing of it? We don't know the author, or who even has legal rights to it. I don't really like the random anonymous images (which represents all of the sexual images that are not of Shankbone, which is 10% of the sexual images).

FWIW, the RL identity of the Goatse Guy is pretty well-known, as he went on to give interviews and produce ... errm ... full-length movies of his 'activities'. He's the subject and the copyright holder/photographer.

Here's a SFW version of an article relating to him --> http://whatport80.com/Goatse - the NSFW one being on ED, of course

[Ottava]

FWIW, the RL identity of the Goatse Guy is pretty well-known, as he went on to give interviews and produce ... errm ... full-length movies of his 'activities'. He's the subject and the copyright holder/photographer.

Here's a SFW version of an article relating to him --> http://whatport80.com/Goatse - the NSFW one being on ED, of course

"Goatse enjoys long walks on the beach, holding hands, and a giant dildo of death."

Scary.

I'm not going to bother asking how you came upon this information.

[Alison]

I'm not going to bother asking how you came upon this information.

I'm one of the sysops on Whatport80, if you must know Fount of all wisdom, that place

[Tarc]

even as the 'overturns' lead by a gaping wide margin, ze God King has spoken

Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The NFCC claim has been a popular herring among the endorses, though their votes really ought be "keep deleted - but change the reason".

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

Ugh. First his blunt forays into the Climategate issue, and now this.

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

But why? Why is that stated as some sort of common-sense/logical truism? It's the internet - people can click on a link to the image if they want to see it. What's the big deal?

Obviously I don't fully understand the reasoning for having the article itself either, nor do I see the encyclopedic value in documenting the "world's most notable anus" any more than I would necessarily see the value in documenting the "world's most notable pancreas" or the "world's most notable garbage bin." There's a reason why some things don't get documented in an encyclopedia - it's because some things don't matter. I understand the bit about lack of space limitations, yada yada yada, and I could almost see having the article purely as an explanation for an internet-culture reference, but to insist that it has to be illustrated is like a denial of the medium's potential. It just isn't required, and given that it's utterly grotesque, why do it, unless grotesqueness is the very purpose and goal of the enterprise?

Some things don't matter, some things do. This one in particular has reached a sufficient level of notability to warrant an article, and the notability is from it being a so-called "shock image". To have an article on it and not show it just seems bizarre.

Not every meme-ish image needs its own article or picture, as few if any others are this well-known outside the 4chan/ED/somethingawful universe. I'm sure that the lemon party doesn't have its own wiki article.

[Apathetic]

I myself can't stand to but glance at the image for a few milliseconds, but if we're going to have an article on the world's most notable anus, we very-well ought to show it!

But why? Why is that stated as some sort of common-sense/logical truism? It's the internet - people can click on a link to the image if they want to see it. What's the big deal?

Forcing users to visit a shock-site to fully understand an article doesn't seem appropriate. Who knows what kind of malware resides there?

(Whether we ought have the article is another question.)

[Eva Destruction]

I'm sure that the lemon party doesn't have its own wiki article.

Any more.

[everyking]

If an image can be reasonably expected to shock mainstream sensibilities, it should not be immediately visible in an article because it will inhibit the accessibility of the information--many people will be too disgusted, enraged, annoyed, and/or horrified to read the article and understand the subject in an objective manner. It's also a simple violation of courtesy. There are, however, ways to make an image available for viewing without presenting it for immediate view.

[Eva Destruction]

If an image can be reasonably expected to shock mainstream sensibilities, it should not be immediately visible in an article because it will inhibit the accessibility of the information--many people will be too disgusted, enraged, annoyed, and/or horrified to read the article and understand the subject in an objective manner. It's also a simple violation of courtesy. There are, however, ways to make an image available for viewing without presenting it for immediate view.

Damn straight. All those people searching on goatse.cx are obviously just looking for information on goats and their fingers slipped on the keyboard.

[Ottava]

While everyone is going back and forth about the image, there are still at least 50 highly notable (meaning, hundreds of sources published by respectable university presses) English poems that lack articles on Wikipedia.

I think everyone's priorities are screwed.

[The Wales Hunter]

Damn straight. All those people searching on goatse.cx are obviously just looking for information on goats and their fingers slipped on the keyboard.

They may even be looking for ideas about sexual intercourse with goats!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-goat_sexual_intercourse

[Eva Destruction]

While everyone is going back and forth about the image, there are still at least 50 highly notable (meaning, hundreds of sources published by respectable university presses) English poems that lack articles on Wikipedia.

I think everyone's priorities are screwed.

More like 50,000, I'd have thought; count the redlinks on the first poet who sprung to my mind for some reason, Ted Hughes. However, Wikipedia's not a zero-sum game; persuading someone to abandon the lovingly-crafted rewrite they're planning for 2 Girls 1 Cup doesn't mean they're going to rush off and work on Eden Bower instead.

(adding) One of the above links works, one doesn't. Guess which one.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Tue 23rd March 2010, 5:55pm

[Ottava]

More like 50,000, I'd have thought; count the redlinks on the first poet who sprung to my mind for some reason, Ted Hughes. However, Wikipedia's not a zero-sum game; persuading someone to abandon the lovingly-crafted rewrite they're planning for 2 Girls 1 Cup doesn't mean they're going to rush off and work on Eden Bower instead.

(adding) One of the above links works, one doesn't. Guess which one.

The 50 number came from poems that are currently sitting in my user space and have not been moved out into content space.

I think my total list (as I counted only the ones I already had info ready for) was well over 540. There are at least 40 Wordsworth poems, 20 Coleridge poems (and a bunch of other works), about 50 Blake poems, at least 35 Keats poems, 30+ Shelley poems, a few dozen Byron poems, and then some of the minor Romantics had some major works that are ignored (like Southey's). Then there are the poems and works of Charles Lamb, and the influential work by Hazlitt.

That is just a 25 year period in British poetry. The pre-Romantics (5 major authors) are apparently all ignored except for my work on Christopher Smart. Then there are quite a few ignored Victorian works too. Then there are those like Fielding who wrote poetry but it has been ignored on Wikipedia.

Oh, and there are at least 50 more notable Milton works that are just ignored.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Tue 23rd March 2010, 6:07pm

[everyking]

If an image can be reasonably expected to shock mainstream sensibilities, it should not be immediately visible in an article because it will inhibit the accessibility of the information--many people will be too disgusted, enraged, annoyed, and/or horrified to read the article and understand the subject in an objective manner. It's also a simple violation of courtesy. There are, however, ways to make an image available for viewing without presenting it for immediate view.

Damn straight. All those people searching on goatse.cx are obviously just looking for information on goats and their fingers slipped on the keyboard.

I don't think people looking for information on the topic necessarily want to see the picture. (In fact, they've probably seen it before, but would rather not see it again--and would especially not like to try reading the article while the image sits there along the side of the screen.) Do you think that necessarily follows?

For example, someone else mentioned 2 Girls 1 Cup--well, that's something I've never seen, although I read about it several times back when it was a popular meme. I feel slightly more knowledgeable as a result of reading the information, but I don't desire to become more knowledgeable by actually viewing the clip--considering the trade-off of information gained vs. potential for disgust and loss of appetite and/or libido, it doesn't seem worthwhile to acquire that extra degree of knowledge. Don't you think that kind of trade-off factors into a lot of decisions about viewing articles of "shock sites" and the like? It would be good if Wikipedia had a reputation as a place where the information could be provided without scaring people away--it would be bad if people felt that accessing the information meant that they'd have to view images they'd rather not see.

[CharlotteWebb]

…world's most notable garbage bin…

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbage Compactor 3263827.