Goatse on WP Options

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

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.

Hmm, I wonder if Britannica is planning on adding articles for Goatse, Tubgirl and 2girls1cup in their next edition?

That's so.... gross.

Listen, I'm all for a lack of censorship, but that crosses the line. You can justify everything on a lack of censorship basis, including bestiality and murder, things I'd also prefer not to be in a mainstream supposed publication.

You've got to have some limits.

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.

There is actually an article about this one infamously vile image! Zero reliable sources, naturally, as there are no acedemic practitioners of goatse studies. What do you want to bet that if I said that on-wiki, some clown would tell me to improve the article by adding sources, or to allow several decades for someone else to add them?

There is actually an article about this one infamously vile image! Zero reliable sources, naturally, as there are no acedemic practitioners of goatse studies. What do you want to bet that if I said that on-wiki, some clown would tell me to improve the article by adding sources, or to allow several decades for someone else to add them?

Here are some sources for goatse, if you want to add them.

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=...goatse&ie=UTF-8

At the top of this jumble http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&...F-8&sa=N&tab=ns there might be a couple of academic mentions of goatse.

My point is that unfortunately sometimes such things are slightly notable.

The Tragic Dithyramb

Compare goatse to goat song.

Note that all of Barsoom Tork's Music Parodies are written in Dithyrambic Vexameter.

Here are some sources for goatse, if you want to add them.

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=...goatse&ie=UTF-8

Which of those are you saying is reliable?

The ones which look like news sources are a sex column in the San Francisco Chronicle written by "Violet Blue" and a blog crossposted to a faux television news outlet.

I don't doubt that one might find a mention in a reliable source, but doubt very much that there will be enough for an article without adding poor sources and original research. That's generally the way it's argued, in my experience: you've got one source which "proves its notable", so we must have an article (though this doesn't follow), and given that we must have an article, we don't want it to be just one line, do we? So we must now turn to poor sources to "flesh it out." Of course, this is completely insincere, as it was always the other way around: we only know about it from junk sources, and now desperately trawl for the slightest mention in a respectable publication.

The talk page does have one of my favourite talkpage comments anywhere on Wikipedia. Where else do you get things like that posted quite so earnestly?

At the top of this jumble http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&...F-8&sa=N&tab=ns there might be a couple of academic mentions of goatse.

My point is that unfortunately sometimes such things are slightly notable.

Yeah, but isnt it only there because of Wikipedia notariety?

The talk page does have one of my favourite talkpage comments anywhere on Wikipedia. Where else do you get things like that posted quite so earnestly?

Considering the context and the history of the poster, you're probably seeing irony, in this case somewhat subtle and therefore gentle sarcasm. A notoriously ineffective mode of discourse to employ on Wikipedia, I might add.

"It's disgustin', mon!" Hermes Conrad, eating popcorn, as the employees of Planet Express watch a live screening of an endoscopic tour of Fry's colon.

"Puke-a-tronic," adds Amy. "This place used to be a big dump."

Last I saw, there was a frame of the 2girls1cup video in that article.

Loverly.

I think the "logo" for the 2012 olympics shows suffecently enough what it may look like. Seriously, there are points where images go to far, any image from a shock site like that is too far.

Here's wikipedia for you.

They keep an image of child porn in the article Virgin Killer

They also have a mother goat eating her own placenta on the ground in Placentophagy, which is about as gross as goatse particularly if you view the image larger size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mother_...ng_placenta.jpg

But they can't stand an image of human feces in their wiki.

They also can't stand having the goatse image included for fair use.

"It's disgustin', mon!" Hermes Conrad, eating popcorn, as the employees of Planet Express watch a live screening of an endoscopic tour of Fry's colon.

"Puke-a-tronic," adds Amy. "This place used to be a big dump."

On net culture generally, I recommend the film 'Untraceable' which I got out last night. Silly but with an element of truth. The premiss of the film is that a serial killer whose IP cannot be traced (the silly bit) tortures people in proportion to the number of people who view the torture live on his untraceable site. The best bit is the juvenile comments that are shown to pop up on the site. Chillingly realistic.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 28th June 2008, 11:46am

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

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

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.

With this, as with the Mohammed cartoons of a few years ago (also the subject of a big Wikipedia fight), the general principle is, if the fact of a controversy over the image(s) is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, then the article should include or link to the actual image (assuming it's not actually illegal, like child porn) so that people can see for themselves, if they wish, what the controversy is about. That's what the "NOT-CENSORED" policy means.

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.

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.

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