Goatse on WP Options

[Tarc]

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.

Perhaps you should join forces with those who continuously try to remove the images of Muhammad from various articles. The argument presented is quite similar.

[carbuncle]

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

Any more.

Ummmm....it's still here, though. And lacking a picture.

[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.

Perhaps you should join forces with those who continuously try to remove the images of Muhammad from various articles. The argument presented is quite similar.

I did make that argument during the Muhammed cartoons controversy several years ago.

[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".

[KD Tries Again]

I was surprised at the effort editors have put into discussing this issue, but of course I shouldn't be. It's a predictable impasse caused by the unreasonable inference that supporting suppression of the goatse picture implies supporting a general principle of suppressing absolutely anything (and the complementary inference that supporting inclusion of the goatse picture implies supporting inclusion of any image whatsoever).

A mundane internet stand-off, and beyond resolution by consensus. It might drag on for years.

[Apathetic]

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".

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

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 24th March 2010, 4:42pm

[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.

[RMHED]

the stretching of anuses.

Shouldn't that be ani, or as it's known on da 'pedia AN/I

[Zoloft]

Hmm... To stay on topic, I should drop a 'branstar' on Ottava's page in homage.

[RMHED]

Hmm... To stay on topic, I should drop a 'branstar' on Ottava's page in homage.

Just give him the Turd of Righteousness award.

This post has been edited by RMHED: Thu 25th March 2010, 1:43am

[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.