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

[Sceptre]

It's been deleted again, and sent to DRV. Odds are that the deletion will be endorsed for a reason unrelated to the deletion at all, because people just don't like it. Sheesh, there are rules for a reason.

[Somey]

Sheesh, there are rules for a reason.

Right, because if they supplied the users with real cudgels, they still wouldn't be able to beat people over the head with them if they should foolishly believe in trying not to offend others. We've been over that.

It's dumb to have an article on a shock image and not show the...wait for it...image. When you can address that point directly, do get back to me.

Is it "addressing that point directly" to remind you that the "it's dumb" part is entirely a matter of opinion, and you haven't told us what your own opinion is based on, other than disdain for people who "think of the children"?

[Tarc]

Is it "addressing that point directly" to remind you that the "it's dumb" part is entirely a matter of opinion, and you haven't told us what your own opinion is based on, other than disdain for people who "think of the children"?

My opinion is based on the old 2600 ideal of "information wants to be free".

[Apathetic]

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!

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Tue 23rd March 2010, 12:26am

[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.