Goatse on WP Options

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

There is a link to the famous goatse image in the goatse.cx article. There has been a multi-year discussion and a currently in progress RFC on whether or not the article should directly include the actual goatse image.

The identity of the person in the image has been removed from the article because of BLP rules.

This post has been edited by ThurstonHowell3rd: Wed 25th June 2008, 3:21am

[wikieyeay]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

[Tarc]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

[Somey]

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Just because it's tired doesn't make it non-valid or irrelevant... after all, these things actually can be disturbing to young kids, give them nightmares about horrible things coming out of people's butts, and so forth. Nobody wants that!

I mean, if they really must have an article about this (which I doubt), then linking to an offsite image seems like a reasonable compromise. Actually displaying it in the article just causes problems for people who are careless enough to click "Special:Random" by accident while they're at work. At the very least, they should put the image in a drop-down box, with a disclaimer on top so you know you'll be seeing something nasty.

[Apathetic]

At the very least, they should put the image in a drop-down box, with a disclaimer on top so you know you'll be seeing something nasty.

We don't do drop down boxes in articles (an exception being navboxes) because printers don't handle them properly.

Moving it "below the fold" might be an option, though.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 10th February 2010, 7:11pm

[Somey]

We don't do drop down boxes in articles (an exception being navboxes) because printers don't handle them properly.

I would think the last thing you'd want to do with that image is print it!

How about a scrollbox? They do that for panoramics, like this one for Victoria Crater on Mars... You could add some whitespace to one side of the image, maybe with a disclaimer in it saying "don't scroll this thing if you have a weak consititution," and then put it in a scrollbox so that it maybe just showed one edge of the image (so that people would know there was something there).

[Apathetic]

We don't do drop down boxes in articles (an exception being navboxes) because printers don't handle them properly.

I would think the last thing you'd want to do with that image is print it!

How about a scrollbox? They do that for panoramics, like this one for Victoria Crater on Mars... You could add some whitespace to one side of the image, maybe with a disclaimer in it saying "don't scroll this thing if you have a weak consititution," and then put it in a scrollbox so that it maybe just showed one edge of the image (so that people would know there was something there).

heh =]

Not sure about the scrollbox idea - it's innovative and clever, but you know how people take to disclaimers in articles. (or if you don't, I'll just say that they're generally always against it).

Moving it "below the fold" is probably something that might stick - but I'm not sure the article can be stretched enough for those of us with bigger monitors.

This whole thing gives me rorschach deja vu.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 10th February 2010, 7:54pm