Pregnancy, NSFW image Options

[everyking]

If an image is shocking, or just even causes you to raise an eyebrow, it probably shouldn't be prominently featured.

All in the eye of the beholder.

That's true, of course. I think the range of acceptability should be defined somewhat conservatively. "Use any relevant image, regardless of cultural acceptability" has the benefit of being unambiguous, but there are big drawbacks that many Wikipedians don't seem to acknowledge or accept.

[taiwopanfob]

If an image is shocking, or just even causes you to raise an eyebrow, it probably shouldn't be prominently featured.

All in the eye of the beholder.

So is NPOV, RS and other matters. All in the beholder. If you can choose to exercise those policies -- because you expect your "beholders" to demand them -- then so you can for other policies these "beholders" may desire.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Tue 24th August 2010, 11:11pm

[Shalom]

This discussion is going off track. At home, when I'm alone, the image of the nude pregnant woman side-on, from the waist up, is not offensive. (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)

There's a flip-side to "Wikipedia is not censored". That is: Wikipedia reaches a very wide audience. The page view statistics for the Pregnancy article show 7,000 pageviews every day, or about 5 pageviews per minute. More than two million people will see that image it stays on the site. Among that mass of humanity, there will be some people who feel not mildly uncomfortable, but really upset - and most of them won't say anything about it on the talk page. This is the kind of decision that the readership won't make. The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages. On less-viewed pages (another classic example: goatse.cx) a more liberal approach may be reasonable, on the grounds of "what did you expect to see?" Even there, Kelly Martin once advised that pressing the "Random article" button might be hazardous because you might land on a NSFW page.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am

[dogbiscuit]

This discussion is going off track. At home, when I'm alone, the image of the nude pregnant woman side-on, from the waist up, is not offensive. (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)

There's a flip-side to "Wikipedia is not censored". That is: Wikipedia reaches a very wide audience. The page view statistics for the Pregnancy article show 7,000 pageviews every day, or about 5 pageviews per minute. More than two million people will see that image it stays on the site. Among that mass of humanity, there will be some people who feel not mildly uncomfortable, but really upset - and most of them won't say anything about it on the talk page. This is the kind of decision that the readership won't make. The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages. On less-viewed pages (another classic example: goatse.cx) a more liberal approach may be reasonable, on the grounds of "what did you expect to see?" Even there, Kelly Martin once advised that pressing the "Random article" button might be hazardous because you might land on a NSFW page.

Ah, Grasshopper, you are not of the faith. Wikipedia defines that anyone who chooses to be offended by information of the world must be the one with an erroneous mindset.

The reality is that there are a myriad of ways in which an article can break a local law or a code of someone's beliefs.

Wikipedia is a place of black and white - because it is not easy to define a rule that allows the reader to define a set of criteria of which to display, it is deemed that it cannot be done.

In reality it would be quite practical to define a set of criteria to mark pictures or text as fitting certain criteria. However, to provide this for the reader would be an unfair imposition on our Glorious Writers (who have enough to do in citing their contributions) and would lead to the possibility of intermediaries using such criteria for censorship, so such a suggestion simply could not be countenanced as the poor dusty child in Africa might be denied his educational porn site.

[anthony]

The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages.

Why?

I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but "must consider what will least offend" is quite over the top.

(My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)

I must say I cracked up when I read that. "I make very few exceptions to living a completely pious life, but porn is one of them!"

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 25th August 2010, 1:05am

[CharlotteWebb]

(My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)

Frankly, I don't see how this information is relevant (or why you'd even think to mention your religious beliefs) unless you were in fact viewing this image and article for pleasure.

P. S. I should know better than to ask how you feel about graven images.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Wed 25th August 2010, 1:49am

[The Joy]

The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages.

Why?

I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but "must consider what will least offend" is quite over the top.

(My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)

I must say I cracked up when I read that. "I make very few exceptions to living a completely pious life, but porn is one of them!"

Because if people are offended by such images, they will not read Wikipedia. If few people read Wikipedia, then the donations will decrease. Eventually, Wikipedia will die when all it had to do was find some less-controversial images to replace the -kind of images.

Wikipedians purposely find the most controversial images to put in articles solely so they can yell "WP:NOTCENSORED" every time someone suggests politely (or orders violently) for a less-provocative image that is freely available. I am sure there are plenty of heavily pregnant Wikipedians willing to put a picture of themselves more moderately dressed on Wikipedia.

Just because there is a mountain there does not mean one has to climb it.

Did the naked woman on the article give written and legal permission for her image to be on Wikipedia and released into the GFDL/CC or whatever to the Wikimedia Foundation?

[anthony]

Because if people are offended by such images, they will not read Wikipedia.

So the problem solves itself!

If few people read Wikipedia, then the donations will decrease.

Whoa now. How did you get from *some* of the 2 million people will be offended to few of the 2 million people won't be offended?

Eventually, Wikipedia will die when all it had to do was find some less-controversial images to replace the -kind of images.

Wikipedians purposely find the most controversial images to put in articles solely so they can yell "WP:NOTCENSORED" every time someone suggests politely (or orders violently) for a less-provocative image that is freely available.

I'm not defending that. As I said "I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but 'must consider what will least offend' is quite over the top."

When I looked at the image, it took me a few seconds before I even noticed what the fuss was about. Oh, nipples, okay...

[The Joy]

If few people read Wikipedia, then the donations will decrease.

Whoa now. How did you get from *some* of the 2 million people will be offended to few of the 2 million people won't be offended?

Huh?

[mydog]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

[Tarc]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

[thekohser]

My first notion when looking at that nude pregnancy picture is, "Couldn't she have done something to fix up her hair?!"

[GlassBeadGame]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

Engaging this discussion on Wikipedian terms with Wikipedians is not going to be productive or even interesting. Once it was established that Wikipedian are incapable of addressing the interests of people outside the project it is just a lot of your usual middle school "I'm so fucking free" nonsense. Some Wikipedians using the matter for some other narrowly Wikipedian issue without even having the Muslim participants present completely misses the point. 500,000 people from across the globe requested in a dignified manner that Wikipedia address a concern they shared. They were not even given a place at the table. A bunch of Wikipedian bigots, trolls and pimply faced adolescents "decided" the matter in a shabby user discussion.

Please go be free someplace else.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Engaging this discussion on Wikipedian terms with Wikipedians is not going to be productive or even interesting. Once it was established that Wikipedian are incapable of addressing the interests of people outside the project it is just a lot of your usual middle school "I'm so fucking free" nonsense. Some Wikipedians using the matter for some other narrowly Wikipedian issue without even having the Muslim participants present completely misses the point. 500,000 people from across the globe requested in a dignified manner that Wikipedia address a concern they shared. They were not even given a place at the table. A bunch of Wikipedian bigots, trolls and pimply faced adolescents "decided" the matter in a shabby user discussion.

Please go be free someplace else.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...969#entry286969

The per-project image filter polls statistics support everything GlassBeadGame just said. Wikipedians (at least the Western-most ones) don't care about any beliefs, ideas, or values other than their own, and Wikipedians believe that their beliefs and such are the "neutral", "objective" ones. The German Wikipedia community is basically threatening to secede (by forking) if things don't go their way.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Wed 26th October 2011, 7:32pm

[Tarc]

Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun.

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

Engaging this discussion on Wikipedian terms with Wikipedians is not going to be productive or even interesting. Once it was established that Wikipedian are incapable of addressing the interests of people outside the project it is just a lot of your usual middle school "I'm so fucking free" nonsense. Some Wikipedians using the matter for some other narrowly Wikipedian issue without even having the Muslim participants present completely misses the point. 500,000 people from across the globe requested in a dignified manner that Wikipedia address a concern they shared. They were not even given a place at the table. A bunch of Wikipedian bigots, trolls and pimply faced adolescents "decided" the matter in a shabby user discussion.

Please go be free someplace else.

Lulz, gimme some more of that bleeding-heart liberalism, AssBeadGame. Your tears sustain me.

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that you're presenting information to the world on one hand, but then censoring some information because of religious extremism on the other.

[HRIP7]

My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.

I think that is the view most sensible editors have endorsed.

We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

[EricBarbour]

The per-project image filter polls statistics support everything GlassBeadGame just said. Wikipedians (at least the Western-most ones) don't care about any beliefs, ideas, or values other than their own, and Wikipedians believe that their beliefs and such are the "neutral", "objective" ones.

Give that man a cigar! He finally gets it!

As I just got done telling Dogbiscuit on another thread, Wikipedia is not "all human" anything.
It is an autistic "encyclopedia" device-or-community. It is arrogant beyond all reason or
meaning and has great contempt for the rest of humanity and their human needs.

Every time someone uses it for "serious educational purposes", the world becomes a little
more Balkanized and degraded.

[Tarc]

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

Well, I think you're basically an idiot.

You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever.

Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't.

[Detective]

No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever.

Quite right! We should never give in to fundamentalists other than Wikipedians shouting WP:Notcensored (although of course it is) and WP:NPOV (although it isn't).

[HRIP7]

There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.

Well, I think you're basically an idiot.

You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever.

Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't.

The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?