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

[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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

It strikes me as quite possible for somebody to have heard of goatse without knowing what it is; Wikipedia is somewhere they might turn to find out. Of course, Google's another, and nobody will protect their sensibilities there, but Wikipedia's supposed to have a level of editorial discretion.

And for what it's worth, I think having images of Mohammed in collapsible (and, by default, collapsed) boxes makes perfect sense. It's not censorship if people can just click "view".

[CharlotteWebb]

And for what it's worth, I think having images of Mohammed in collapsible (and, by default, collapsed) boxes makes perfect sense. It's not censorship if people can just click "view".

Accommodating/enabling religious dogma is not any better. I'm curious to know what else you would or would not consider to make "perfect sense".

MOS:COLLAPSE apparently doesn't quite forbid it anymore (unless you consider it a spoiler...)

Spoiler, hell. Folks who expect others to protect their sensibilities are already irredeemably spoilt.

That said, the point of allowing any fair-use image (against anyone's better judgment) is to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [where] its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".

If one truly can understand the article just as well with the image "collapsed", then its presence most likely is vestigial and not worth invoking the "fair use" defense. I really can't see any in-between state wherein the image only increases the understanding of those readers not offended by seeing it (but I'll admit I don't have any experience with that).

If the article doesn't need such-and-such an image then go ahead and delete it. But don't put it in a collapsed box because "IKAGWKAG who finds this offensive". That sends a completely different message, and it's not a flattering one.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Wed 24th March 2010, 5:37pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

Accommodating/enabling religious dogma is not any better. I'm curious to know what else you would or would not consider to make "perfect sense".

In general, making any image likely to offend or shock a significant portion of Wikipedia's readers hidden by default makes perfect sense.

If one truly can understand the article just as well with the image "collapsed", then its presence most likely is vestigial and not worth invoking the "fair use" defense. I really can't see any in-between state wherein the image only increases the understanding of those readers not offended by seeing it (but I'll admit I don't have any experience with that).

I'm referring as much to free images as fair use ones.

But don't put it in a collapsed box because "IKAGWKAG who finds this offensive". That sends a completely different message, and it's not a flattering one.

Is it "we're willing to take simple measures to avoid offending people when it does not in any way inhibit our content, rather than adhere mindlessly to some kind of dogma that equates a disregard for editorial restraint with freedom of speech"?

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Wed 24th March 2010, 11:40pm

[CharlotteWebb]

In general, making any image likely to offend or shock a significant portion of Wikipedia's readers hidden by default makes perfect sense.

Without knowing the exact details, I suspect if outcry is one you consider politically incorrect you'd begin playing the classic "now I'm offended that you're offended" game, which though it never ends well does not imply that the other party is trolling you deliberately, regardless of what hair-splitting distinction you attempt to draw in saying so.

Thus I was hoping you'd provide some examples. I'd offer some except I'd sooner not be accused of scare-crow tactics, plus think of the hours I could spend brain-storming something more interesting.

[Ottava]

Since when was "offensive" part of an encyclopedia? I would think that you turn "informational" into "spectacle". Is Wikipedia now the Howard Stern show?

[RMHED]

Since when was "offensive" part of an encyclopedia? I would think that you turn "informational" into "spectacle". Is Wikipedia now the Howard Stern show?

Of course it is, you stupid caustic Catholic cunt!

[Ottava]

Since when was "offensive" part of an encyclopedia? I would think that you turn "informational" into "spectacle". Is Wikipedia now the Howard Stern show?

Of course it is, you stupid caustic Catholic cunt!

Is this your content contribution for the week? I wouldn't be surprised if the people at the Catholic Church article decided to put the above in and cite you as a credible source.

[RMHED]

Since when was "offensive" part of an encyclopedia? I would think that you turn "informational" into "spectacle". Is Wikipedia now the Howard Stern show?

Of course it is, you stupid caustic Catholic cunt!

Is this your content contribution for the week? I wouldn't be surprised if the people at the Catholic Church article decided to put the above in and cite you as a credible source.

Yeah, now where's my fucking barnstar, ya 'pedia bitch!

This post has been edited by RMHED: Thu 25th March 2010, 12:46am

[Ottava]

Yeah, now where's my fucking barnstar, ya 'pedia bitch!

I hate barnstars. By the way, when have you ever accepted external validation?

[RMHED]

Yeah, now where's my fucking barnstar, ya 'pedia bitch!

I hate barnstars. By the way, when have you ever accepted external validation?

I love external validation, it sure beats internal examination from customs and excise, though these days I'll take what I can get when it comes to intimacy.

[Ottava]

I love external validation, it sure beats internal examination from customs and excise, though these days I'll take what I can get when it comes to intimacy.

Wow, you managed to return to the topic: disgusting things involving the stretching of anuses.

[NuclearWarfare]

I love external validation, it sure beats internal examination from customs and excise, though these days I'll take what I can get when it comes to intimacy.

Wow, you managed to return to the topic: disgusting things involving the stretching of anuses.

Hmm, that's probably one of the few times I will ever hear that used in written conversation.