Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Decent image proposal

Refactored from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decent image proposal

Folks, we all saw the royal mess that occured during the WikiProject's VfD. The only argument written there against this project that could have persuaded me a bit was that it could become a breeding place for censorship. I imagine that if that ends up happening, we'll see another VfD quite soon.

As a result of that, I'm proposing something about obscene images: we admit that they are, well, necessary, in some articles, but they have no place in others. I don't want a picture of a naked woman in shadow, like a recent edit suggested, but sexual images in sexology articles do have some merit. So, the WikiProject could turn into a project to ensure that indecent images are placed only where appropriate. This isn't as difficult as it may appear: have a list of obscene images, click on one, use the Special:Whatlinkshere tool once in the image's page, and then, verify that they are linked only from pages that need it. I don't know what others may think, but if this proposal is debated and accepted, I'll be interested in joining the WikiProject. --Tito xd 03:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to try to clarify the nomenclature used. Titoxd moves between several terms that have quite different meanings, without making corresponding distinctions about how we might treat them. Part of the reason I've urged keeping in some of the legal stuff, despite the dire warnings that amateur lawyering by Wikipedians might result, is that law treats several terms very differently. For the most part, the distinctions made by courts and legislatures are helpful to us as well.

Obscene: Under the Miller test (slightly US-centric), material which has "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is ipso facto not obscene. Quite apart from legal ramifications, I do not believe that obscene material has any place anywhere on Wikipedia.

Indecent: After Miller, this term was somewhat discredited. Generally this means (non-obscene) sexually explicit material that may legally be prohibited from provision to children, but which adults have the right to obtain and possess. Recent laws like the COPA, CDA, and some FCC regulation prohibit indecent material in some (limited) contexts.

Pornographic: Literally "writing of prostitutes." Generally nowadays used to refer to sexually explicit images in particular, mostly those that depict actual sexual acts rather than nudity or poses that might merely titillate sexually. However, the use of this word varies greatly. Pornography is usually not considered "work safe" or "school safe", not as a matter of law, but of convention and discretion.

Sexual: In the context of human sexuality, and in the sense of images or narrative, this can describe a broad array of content, of which "pornography" is only a subset. Nudity, even partial, or "provocative" poses, are often judged sexual in this meaning. Sexual images may fail to be germane in many WP articles, but there is little plausible case that being merely sexual is a bar to content being used in schools, universities, academic publication, etc.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:34, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

That sounds like your opinion, not out of some legal treatise on the subject. Bottomline...if the article is about an overt sex act, no image, none. If about nudity, then an image but only if the article is incapable of providing the necessary details in written form. Should a picture of Ms. January be the "choice" to go with the aticle on nudity or should it be the a picture of the 600 pound naked fat lady at the circus...they both would display nudity, wouldn't they? As Jimbo wales stated that now we have a drawing of autofellatio instead of the picture "for better or for worse"...meaning as I would seee it that he doesn't hink this sort of thing needs an image to describe the action...it would seem to be self explanatory without that image in either drawing or picture. You seem to come from some far off left viewpoint as to what constitutes encyclopedic merit for inclusion.--MONGO 04:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My prior comment—and everything I write on any talk page—is, of course, my opinion. That said, I have tried to state these usages with a NPOV, under the possibility that they might act as starting points for definitions this project later adopts.

I disagree with the recommendations MONGO makes above, but let's see what WP, and this project particularly, thinks: (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:53, 2005 August 25 (UTC))

I disagree wholeheartedly with MONGO's disgust at the human form. Hipocrite 19:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then both of you disagree with what the purpose of this project is and should be removed from it...you will, of course be welcome to continue to voice opinions in the discussions, however.--MONGO 18:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, you read much more semantics than I had expected. What I meant was that images that could be considered { inaproppriate | indecent | obscene | pornographic | sexual | prurient | erotic | dirty | filthy | or whatever the correct word may be } could be allowed to live in a confined space about sexology articles. My point is, Wikipedia doesn't need to have these kinds of images in most, but not all articles (yes, they are useful in some articles), and the way to stop images like these from being abused is by using the Whatlinkshere tool. So, apart from any semantic issues, what is everyone's opinion about it? --Tito xd 00:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All together now! Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors R adiant _>|< 08:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

- What I'm thinking is more in the lines of an anti-vandalism effort, not censorship. If a reason for the image is found, there is no need to block it. --Tito xd 22:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Solution

I (and others) have suggested at various times that ultimately a technological solution could exist. Images could be tagged with descriptive words such as "simulated violence" "partial nudity" "sexuality". Users would then have the option (probably through browser cookies) of choosing that they are OK with seeing nudity but not sexuality, or whatever their choice is. I recognize that there will still be arguments, (E.g. "what about a picture of two people kissing, does that qualify as sexuality?") but at least it would be an improvement. Johntex 17:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I paste here some comments that came into the Help desk: [1]

"Is it possible to sanitise content within Wikipedia for profane language, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt , for use within a Primary school. We would like to use this resource as its probably more complete then any encyclopedia we currently have access to, but we need to make sure that things that parents might object to cannot be viewed easly. Thanks, John Bradshaw"

He was basically pointed in the direction of filtering software - but it was pointed out that filtering software can't interpret images. He was also told he could mirror Wikipedia and remove objectionable content itself (true, but a ton of work, and loses the ongoing additions to the project).
Then, apparently still John Bradshaw but now with a username said:

"...is it possible to suggest to the 'powers that be' some sort of Family Filter similar to google, where you actively have to click off or view if someone considers this to be unsafe material. Similar to the 'This content is controversial' options that you can have on entries into the encyclopedia? Machtzu 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I would like to reiterate my support for such a technological solution. This would allow the user to have some control over the encyclopedic nature of their experience here. Johntex 17:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is it necessary for a content host to self-censor itself to its entire audience?? Those who want to be censored should take responsibility into their own hands to provide their own personal forms of censorship, many of which have been available for quite some time. This prevents unnecessary pains for the rest of us who aren't as easily filled with personal shame, and doesn't lead us down any slippery slopes. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-7 02:37