→Break: - the key point is this; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue.
::::::::I don't think so. He ''simplified'' the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think so. He ''simplified'' the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Tarc, I remember how the issue was resolved. I also know that it would never have gotten to that point except that I pushed, and pushed hard. I don't really care if the right thing got done for a spurious reason (God knows the closing admin needed some credible excuse, given the trenchant opposition); what I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments. Simply repeating NOTCENSORED over and over again is a discussion tactic worthy of six year olds, and it's not how we should decide things on project. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Tarc, I remember how the issue was resolved. I also know that it would never have gotten to that point except that I pushed, and pushed hard. I don't really care if the right thing got done for a spurious reason (God knows the closing admin needed some credible excuse, given the trenchant opposition); what I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments. Simply repeating NOTCENSORED over and over again is a discussion tactic worthy of six year olds, and it's not how we should decide things on project. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue. The only reason the image was deleted was because of [[WP:NFCC]] policy, which is arguably one of the most important in the project as it deals with fair use and copyright concerns. That you think the prevailing argument is ridiculous is a point you have belabored to death by now. We get it. We also no longer care. Simply "being offensive", an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:39, 17 November 2011
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Due to a number of disputes that have arisen over the years involving NOTCENSORED, as well as the above-noted conflict, I am opening a policy RfC on the question below, which as far as I can tell is the crux of the problem. I believe our position on this subtle point needs to be clarified, particularly in light of the Recent foundation resolution on controversial content.
RfC Question
NOTCENSORED is necessary to protect controversial content which makes a clear and unambiguous contribution to an article; This is a given. That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?
In other words, while there is a strong consensus that controversial images of (say) penises or vaginas are necessary on their namesake pages, or that the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are central to the topic of that article, it is not clear that this same consensus extends to protect images which are merely decorative elements, artistic illustrations, unneeded exemplifications, page fillers, or other material of negligible content value for the article. --Ludwigs201:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of places where the issue of applying NOTCENSORED to incidental material has arisen (more may be added as the RfC progresses):
talk:Pregnancy over the use of an art nude image in the lead of the article I don't see how this is an example of "incidental" imagery, considering some photo of a pregnant woman is a pretty important aspect of an article about pregnancy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
talk:Muhammad/Images, over the use of non-representative artwork depicting Muhammad
talk:Goatse.cx over the inclusion of a screenshot of the original shock site. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Again, I don't see how this is an example of "incidental" imagery, considering that it is central to the shock site. I think different issues were at play here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates a difficult-to-resolve opening for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to be offensive, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic NOTCENSORED assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs215:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cautious support. Given the murky definition of "incidental material" I'll support the following concepts: 1. If there is consensus that any content does not have educational value this policy is irrelevant and the content is not protected. 2. Complaints from readers about offensive material should at least be considered, and consistent complaints should require specific justification that the offensive content is truly necessary. Editors must not simply blow off the complaints as "not censored says we can" if there is an indication that a substantial number of readers strongly disapprove, though reader feedback does not override consensus. 3. NOTCENSORED must be clear enough that it cannot be used as a tool to censor talk page discussions of whether controversial content is appropriate. 4. Offensive content should not be used if there is non-offensive content that achieves the same goal. SDY (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN46601:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of principle NOTCENSORED should not "protect" any material. The purpose of NOTCENSORED is to provide a policy through which arguments that an image (or prose) should go for reasons of censorship can be squashed immediately. NOTCENSORED is a quick and easy response to a particular argument. it is not in any way an argument for the use of any material, as noted (perhaps in an extreme) by point 9 in the Wikipedia:Image use policy, "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." Pictures should be evaluated for usage independent of whether they would or would not be censored elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not censored is often used ideologically as a justification for keeping material that is otherwise of no inherent value, as if any material that we can include, also should be included. This proposal helps clarify that point.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. NOTCENSORED is not a substitute for editorial judgement. In cases where shocking or provocative images are not necessary for understanding of the subject, there's no need to dogmatically protect them. We should be able to have a rational discussion on what actually improves the article rather than just shouting at each other about censorship. For example, we don't include gruesome images of people's heads blown off in the suicide article. Is this censorship? No, its just good editorial judgement, and such judgement shouldn't be so difficult to defend. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly support per Kaldari, with emphasis on the editorial judgment part. I think Wikipedians, generally speaking, have a reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to exercising editorial judgment, and accusations of censorship are often bandied about unnecessarily. I think offensiveness is a fine consideration when media do little to increase readers' understanding. (This applies whether it is a photo of a random spider on the arachnophobia page; the use of a large number of way-post-death images of Muhammad even when images of Muhammad are rare, relatively speaking, in Islamic art; the use of a graphic photo of a dead person on the suicide page; etc etc etc.) There is no reason to cause offense unnecessarily when readers' benefit is trivially small. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support although in this particular circumstance, that this is specifically about pictures of Muhammed, it galls me to support this because I think the pictures are OK to have. However, as a general rule, it seems that if we have something that 1) is of marginal encyclopedic value and 2) offends a lot of people, then from a business and political perspective it's pointless to include it. Have some perspective, people. (In the particular case of the Muhammed pictures, a case could be made for including them on grounds of principle. But for most cases -- you know, some really offensive gory or sexually extreme or otherwise inflamatory image and so forth, and it's entirely peripheral to the thrust of the article, let's be reasonable.) Herostratus (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support NOTCENSORED is not an excuse for including irrelevant and trivially related offensive material in any article. In the article Automobile, a picture that contains both an automobile and a naked person deserves no special protection, because pictures of naked people do not add anything to the readers' understanding of automobiles. It does protect "offensive" images when they are not incidental or decorative, including naked bodies in all sorts of medicine-related and sexuality-related articles—but even there, the image(s) chosen should normally be the least-offensive image that conveys the necessary information, not the editors' favorite Playboy centerfold model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTCENSORED does protect incidental material
Support NOTCENSORED indicates that issues related to religion are not considered, and shields substantive images and less substantive images alike. That shield does not create license: the images may be removed for any number of reasons, but they should never be held to a higher standard than images in other articles. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and takes no notice of religious objections in its editorial policies.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would argue that none of the listed examples are incidental material, the Goatse one especially. If it is an image of the specific subject, then it needs to be included for illustration. The Goatse image is of the specific subject of the website, I see no logical reason why it should be excluded. The pregnancy debate is a bit more iffy, but it is obviously true that a nude photograph more clearly shows what pregnancy looks like than a person who has clothes covering her body. And, as for Muhammad, what exactly is non-representative of images of Muhammad made by historic Muslim artists? I'm actually surprised there's so few images of Muhammad in that article, in comparison to, say, the article on Jesus. SilverserenC01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KWW and Silver seren above. Additionally: All "incidental material" should simply be judged by existing policy which already covers numerous reasons to include or remove any type of content on Wikipedia. NOTCENSORED does not, nor (in my recollection) ever has invalidated WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:BLP or any other part of WP:NOT (or various other policies and guidelines I may have missed). Proper application of all only leaves content that is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED (anything else automagically would be "prohibited" by the other policies). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To the extent that the reason for wanting to remove the "incidental" material is based on offensiveness, WP:NOTCENSORED does apply. Offensiveness is not relevant, the question should be does the inclusion contribute to the article, or would the article be as good without the image (discounting any arguments to the effect that removal of offensiveness will make the article better. Monty84502:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This change, which seems to be specifically targeting medieval Islamic art from Persia and the Arab world, is unjustified. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if incidental material is being discussed for removal, it should be based on the merits of whether or not it it improves the article, not whether or not it's too offensive. For example, a picture of a dead woman impaled through her perineum shouldn't be removed from the article on women because it's offensive, but because it doesn't illustrate the subject very well; the article on women describes what living women are and do, so pictures living, healthy women better supplement the article. Conversely, the same picture could fit quite well in the article on the Rape of Nanking, because that could illustrate the events there quite well even though it's incidental (it's just one small part of the entire event, and wouldn't have any more significance than any number of other images). Removing it just because someone says it's offensive would be disruptive because the Rape of Nanking happened, and it's certainly representative of the events. It could be removed for any number of other reasons (quality, another image better supporting the surrounding text, or copyright issues, to name three), but removing it just for being "offensive" is not a valid one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the picture you are referring to, and I agree with you. But the image is not incidental in rape of Nanking, and is not mere decoration; like certain images of the holocaust, it is an iconic image used by historians to show what happened. It has precedent in reliable sources covering the topic. What we are talking about are images that do not have such precedent, and do not reflect the typical illustration approach in reliable sources. --JN46617:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the way it currently reads NOTCENSORED simply allows disclussion of positions that purposefully paint something as being offensive where no offense is. If something can be disproven on a separate policy NOTCENSORED doesn't even come into play since it goes off the policy that it violates. Something strictly removed because a group has considered it offensive is not meritous and leads to censorship of many articles for specific gains of groups in all spectrums. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kww, SilverSeren and Mathsci. I would add that the entire question is flawed, as it relies on multiple POVs: First that the material is trivial. Second that it is offensive. The result is the circular argument that the material is trivial because it is offensive, and it is offensive because it is trivial. This proposal is an attempt at neutering WP:NOTCENSORED in violation of WP:NPOV. Resolute16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NOTCENSORED does (properly) apply to "incidental" material. To censor something is to remove it because some people find it offensive or otherwise objectionable, and I think it is right that Wikipedia would not be swayed by such feelings even if the material is incidental. There might be other reasons to remove "incidental" material -- but we shouldn't do so in deference to a desire for censorship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although I would support this position because of the proposer of the RFC, NOTCENSORED does and should apply to "trivial images". If an image is really "trivial" or "incidental" images, it should be removed, regardless. However, the images in question are not "incidental", and this would increase the edit wars on the article-that-should-not-be-named. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key to the problem. You are wrong. Wikipedia abounds with trivial, uninformative images, that dress up pages, and say nothing that isn't covered in the text. See the lead image of ADHD. Generally, they're not a problem, often they make the article more appealing. But if you think an image can be removed simply on the basis that it adds nothing to the readers' understanding, we're on different projects. I defy you to remove the lead image of ADHD on the basis that it is trivial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Support It is and should remain a basic principle that applies to all WP content, The attempt to remove so-called incidental material from its protection is an excellent illustration of the slippery slope in action: try to find opportunities for gradually removing the protection. Many have been proposed, and the only safe course is to reject every one of them. As pointed out above, his is a particularly poorly thought out one, because of the additional slipperiness of the words used. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposal appears to be "Wikipedia is not censored, except when it is." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so remove any content if it's truly unencyclopedic, whether images or text or whatever. But be prepared to be reverted, defend your actions on the talk page, and accept consensus whether or not it's on your side. If somebody in that conversation invokes NOTCENSORED spuriously, say so. This is the process we have now, and I see no reason to change it. Lagrange61317:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support . If a policy restricts content, in my view, it should only do so to preserve truth (not to sound too grandiose). No number of sources calling some piece of media "incidental" to a given topic will conclusively establish it as "incidental." If we rewrite NOTCENSORED to explicitly not protect so-called "incidental" media, we will, in effect, condone OR.Divergentgrad (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI don't see the alternative as workable as it relies too much on an agreement about what is incidental. Not censored and irrelevant should be two different inquiries, although, they can under certain contextual circumstances inform one another. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. The main argument of the opposition seems to be that the current reading is too vulnerable to wikilawyering by POV pushers, however I fear that phrasing such as "little or no value" is much more vulnerable by far. JORGENEV00:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support more or less. It doesn't protect irrelevant material (like random penis vandalism), but "it's offensive" is a very weak argument for removing a relevant image. The point for NOTCENSORED is to remove the hecklers veto not just limit it to close cases. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, most of those other articles you're talking about have images which are independently notable, and those images are a part of how those people are perceived. Muhammad is unusual in that there isn't a rich artistic tradition of depiction, and the images we're using for the article are fairly obscure. Including a couple isn't ridiculous, there is an artistic history there, but it's nothing like Orthodox icons or the fact that a
Interestingly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art disagrees with you. So does the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Guess which I find more notable? Your opinion, or theirs? And if we were to judge by policies and guidelines, which would I *have* to choose as a more reliable source - you or them? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, this is exactly what I didn't want to do, which is make this RfC a complete rehash of the Muhammad debate. I completely disagree with you, but this isn't the time or place for that discussion. SDY (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It IS the Muhammad debate - and that's not my fault: he wrote it, not me. Did you even read his RfC? It asks (paraphrased, but accurately), "since the images are of no value, shouldn't we change wp:censor so we can remove them?" Did you also fail to notice he is the one who brought up that article? Again, that wasn't me. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Side note (question): You disagree that those two museums (and others, I am sure) have stances on the matter more valid than yours? Is that honestly what you are trying to say? If so, please point me to your notable history book on the matter or something similar. If not, then the question is irrelevant, and I am not sure what you are disagreeing with and would appreciate clarification. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such images are prized for their rarity. None of these museums assert that pictures like this hang in mosques or people's homes, are a customary illustration in Islamic texts, or are in any way representative of mainstream religious art in the Islamic tradition. Islamic religious art has taken a completely different direction to religious art in other cultures, as a look into any book or encyclopedia article on it will tell you. ("For practical purposes, representations are not found in religious art, although matters are quite different in secular art. Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) --JN46616:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is closer to that museum than it is a mosque or an individual's home. given we are an institution intended to collect and share knowledge, I think you have just added a fine argument for why Wikipedia should retain the images. Resolute16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are sharing knowledge on a fringe aspect of Islamic art, while neglecting the mainstream. It's like having an article on the Bugatti Veyron that is all about the wheel nuts. --JN46617:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On fa.wp, the consensus seems to have been that the images should not be excluded because this amounts to suppressing an important aspect of Islamic history and culture. --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, this was a golden age in Persian culture, universally recognized in the academic world. From his self-description on en.wkipedia.org, Jayen466 has no expertise in Islamic art. Given that, it's hard to know why he is making such bold assertions. Could it be just some form of WP:GAME? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be daft, Mathsci. Iran is a Shiite country, and it's tolerant of figurative depictions of Muhammad in a way the majority Sunni tradition is not. If you look at the Turkish and especially the Arabic Muhammad articles, you'll find a lot of useful, culturally iconic imagery that we don't feature. --JN46607:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask for clarification of this. It seems to imply "Iran is an Islamic country - but their interpretation of Islam is wrong, so we can discount them". I'm sure that was not your intent, but when you imply that because they are tolerant of such - but Sunni tradition isn't, it's hard to see anything else as a reason. I've watched similar wars on and off Wikipedia from various sects of Christianity - some going so far as to claim that other sects weren't really Christianity. Obviously, we can't take sides in that either - nor should we evaluate which of these are "the true Islam". So, please elucidate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The description on the website of the Fitzwilliam Museum of the Book of Kings has a more detailed commentary than you have given of the page in the illuminated manuscript depicting the veiled Prophet Muhammad that I mentioned elsewhere. You have actively campaigned on this very issue on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Sondage/Installation d'un Filtre d'image) and are currently also airing your views on wikipedia review. Issues like this have arisen in real life and various experts on Islamic art seem not to agree with your stance. As a recent example, Thomas P. Campbell, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, said in June about the Museum's decision to display images of the Prophet in the new Islamic gallery: “We hope that it does not become a lightning-rod issue. These are not 20th-century cartoons setting out to be confrontational. They’re representative of a great tradition of art. ... We could duck [this issue], but I don’t think it would be the responsible thing to do. Then we’d just be accused of ducking it.” [3]Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely an art exhibition, designed to showcase tons of art, is very different from our aim of creating a set of images that aid the understanding of the reader? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. In the case of the Met, I assume that the Islamic collection is designed to educate the US public on aspects of the Islamic world. In addition, I also assume that in post-9/11 New York they are sensitive to causing offense. There are also other accounts, e.g. these essays by Islamic scholars Timothy Winter[4] and Omid Safi[5]. Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as though it were a crime to support something on-wiki that the Wikimedia Foundation Board thinks is a good idea. --JN46609:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar debate with Griswaldo (article on religion or biography on a person who happens to be a religious figure). Besides disagreeing with me, he advised me that I am "sorely out of (my) depth here"[6] and my comments are "that much more ignorant".[7] There are others who seem to hold a similar view (sans the "interesting" comments against those who disagree). This of course means one of the most important basis's for determining how to handle the images is being disputed by others. And thus, this problem will continue since not even a major basis for things can be agreed upon. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would define incidental material as material that adds practically no educational value to an article, but is just being included because it is related to the subject. All those examples of "non-representative" artwork in the comments section are far from incidental. Monty84502:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I added a comment above to show the true effect, even though the goals may be to censor only those particular articles. The RfC is biased in implying, from the start, that there is no value to the images. But that was expected (which is why on the Muhammad Images talk page, we wouldn't agree to this RfC proposal). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, an RfC on if we've stopped beating our wives? Ludwigs loaded the RfC question, i.e. "That being said, does NOTCENSORED also protect controversial content that adds little or no value to the article?" He has staked a position at Talk:Muhammad/images that has garnered precious little support, that images of Muhammed are of no value to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this is to allow discussion about whether material is incidental or not. There's no hard and fast rule; I trust editors can work it out. however, we need to stop the use of nontcensored as a hard and fast rule that protects every image no matter how stupid it might be.
Frankly, I'm just tired of trying to discuss this issue and getting jumped on by fanatics who have their teeth sunk into NOTCENSORED. it just produces a whole lot of dumb arguments. --Ludwigs215:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're tired of discussing the issue, feel free to find something else to do. The principle of "not censored" is perfectly applicable to content that religious fundamentalism wants to remove from the project. All this is is an endaround a consensus that you do not like. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2: This is not about whether the material is incidental or not. You imply as fact that it is, and ask if it should be removed under policy. And the underlying reasons are once again because you believe we should adhere to religious beliefs.[8][9][10] Each time you try to tack on whatever handy rationale you think might appease some - but the one consistency is you wish (as you've stated) all images to be removed[11] to not offend/to honor religious beliefs. Oh, and this time I provided diffs to your words. So, don't bother wasting your time claiming I'm attacking you or misportraying your motives (or I'll add a half dozen more diffs to each). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all poll options since question is flawed. None of the 3 examples are purely incidental and no particular definition of incidental-ness is stipulated. --Cybercobra(talk)11:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Defining incidental
SDY had a good question about what counts as "incidental" material. Let's start at one extreme, and see if we can walk back to a reasonable definition:
Imagine that the article is Automobile, in a section about different types of vehicles. An editor wants to replace an existing picture showing a sports car with another picture showing a similar sports car with a naked woman walking past it (e.g., perhaps the snapshot was taken at a nudist facility).
Can we all agree that:
such an image would count as potentially offensive material for the purposes of NOTCENSORED;
that the nudity serves no educational purpose (for that article); and
the image deserves no special protection under NOTCENSORED.
Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think that NOTCENSORED requires us to prefer the image that happens to contain both a nude woman and a sports car over the image that shows a sports car but no humans? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious, yes. But I think that as we "work backward," we will restrict ourselves to only some lines of thinking and not others. We can't hope to cover all possible shades of gray, and certainly not from all perspectives. I don't think we can expect to define "incidental" material for all topics, all at once, since really it is up to an expert on a given topic to decide whether something is incidental. In the case of the car, I'm sure everyone would agree you need do no original research to decide the nude woman adds nothing to your understanding of automobiles. But when it comes to our famous example above, it appears that, depending on the expert whose work you consult, certain cartoons will be declared "incidental" or not, and so it would be impossible to declare something incidental without doing some level of so-called "original research." Divergentgrad (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was this contribution irrelevant? I feel my idea has been ignored. If my point is no good, it would at least be educational for me to know why. Divergentgrad (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, all other things about those two theoretical pictures being equal, it is simple enough to choose the picture that illustrates the subject best. You don't need any policy changes for that; just read Wikipedia:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. ¶ Here's a tougher example. Assume we only have one rare automobile picture (say a prototype) which has bikini clad (or even topless) girl centrally posing with it (so that clipping her out of the image would be noticeable to the viewer). What would you prefer our putative policy on incidentally objectionable material recommend in this case? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII, the issue here is that we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship, even when we have unobjectionable options available. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with: a needlessly offensive picture, being defended as something that requires more than the ordinary reasons to replace it with something else—as in, it's not good enough to just use your editorial judgment and treat it like any other picture, e.g., the way you would decide between a photograph of the car vs a photograph of the car with a clothed person.
Re: "we occasionally do have people say that removing such an image is pure censorship. That's the problem Ludwigs is trying to deal with". Absolutely not. Just look at the examples Ludwigs2 gave: Muhammad depictions, etc. His idea of incidental is very different from mine or yours. And let's not engage in hair splitting here. I used "girl" generically; assume she is of legal age for porn shoots in Florida. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WhatamiIdoing, that's not what Ludwigs2 is attempting to address at all. If he was, I might even try to figure out a way to support wording that would. What he is attempting to do is incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy. That's a very bad thing to be fighting for, and I can't foresee any time where I would support it.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww - you really have no idea what I'm trying to do, and what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear...
Defining 'incidental material' is fairly easy in principle (though as I write this I'm beginning to think that 'gratuitous' is a better word):
Images of things which are not described in the article text are incidental
Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental
So, if your car-with-nude-model image is the only image we have and we deem it necessary for the article to have an image of the car, then the image is protected; but if we have another image without a nude model, then the first image can be replaced without changing the meaning of the article, so it becomes incidental. that doesn't mean it necessarily will be removed, only that NOTCENSORED does not apply and we can have a discussion about removing it.
Kww's meaningless noise aside, the point here is not to remove every controversial image that doesn't meet some preset criteria, but merely place a lower-limit on the application of NOTCENSORED so that we don't get tangled in these pissy wars over tangential images that really don't help build the article much at all. We can solve these kinds of disputes IF we can talk about them; the goal here is to preclude editors from beating us over the head with policy to keep those conversations from happening. --Ludwigs221:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the origins of this discussion, I don't think Kww's comment counts as "meaningless noise" at all. Perhaps you're simply not the right person to drive this one forward. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that definition of incidental. Applying that definition to Obama, the infobox picture of the president, File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg would be incidental to the article, as the sitting for that photo is not discussed in the article, and it could be removed without changing the meaning of the article. Any image that is REALLY incidental should be removed for not adding to the article, regardless of censorship. Monty84522:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, sometimes it is hard to take you seriously. Are you denying that you consider religious objections to be worthy of consideration by Wikipedia editors? Have I not been explicit in saying that I think to do so is fundamentally wrong? What part of my "meaningless noise" said anything much different?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww: I will AGF that you actually believe that statement. however, as I have said many, many, many times, this is not about religion for me (any more than the same argument on Pregnancy or Goatse.cx was about nudity). For me, this is about NPOV and ethics: about not using images that offend out readers without some good encyclopedic reason to do so. Frankly, I am baffled by the fact that you don't instantly accept this. It wouldn't surprise me more if we went out ballroom dancing and you start flailing around like you're in a mosh pit. I've got nothing against moshing, mind you, but trying to carry that 'if you get hurt you shouldn't have come here' attitude into wikipedia's editing practices is bizarre. or so it seems to me.
I don't see that we lose anything that matters to the encyclopedia by showing a little common courtesy where we can. you seem to see common courtesy as some infectious form of radical censorship. that position is just such a complete non-sequitor to me that I cannot even fathom why you would hold. maybe if you could explain that to me we could get somewhere. --Ludwigs223:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the religious objections of a billion Muslims and the religious objections of three remote tribespeople are precisely and absolutely equal, because popularity has nothing to do with whether an objection is valid, and neither side's objection has any merit that a secular encyclopedia can evaluate. Taking one into account without taking the other into account is morally abhorrent. The only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both, and that is precisely what we have to do. By any measure that is relevant to an encyclopedia, the images of Mohammed are not controversial at all. I'm not worried that your stance will result in massive censorship, I'm worried that your stance will result in highly selective censorship favoring some large groups, which is a more damaging result by far.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and there we have the central flaw in your belief structure, where you say: "the only way to treat them both equally is to disregard them both." You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers, but for what purpose? I could see this kind of rigid resistance if - say - we somehow had an actual life-drawing of Muhammad. Heck, if we had an actual image of the prophet I'd be pitching in right beside you against those billion Muslims. But we're talking about non-representative artwork from a particular historical period that is of no direct relevance to this particular article - what's in here that is so important that it requires this intensity of resistance?
You and I both know the answer to that: you are standing on a principle. it's a good principle, too - wikipedia should not be censored - but like any good thing too much of it is bad. If you cannot draw the line anywhere except "absolutely not, never" then you condemn yourself and the rest of us to endless amounts of pointless fighting. On the other hand, if you show a little common courtesy on cases like this (where the gain to the page is so minor that it's really not worth it) you will find that it becomes easier to stand up for the principle where it really matters. --Ludwigs200:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You've committed yourself to a scorched earth policy that denies the interests and feelings of our readers" - The interests and feelings of which readers? Do you actually think they all feel the same way? That they all feel the same as you do? If that was the case, why do you think you are finding so much resistance? Besides, as I have pointed out repeatedly, "we" have already shown more than enough common courtesy. We have agreed to more than enough compromises. That you choose to ignore these facts reveals that negotiating with you is worthless, because you have shown that you will not accept anything other than exactly what you want. Resolute00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Resolute: You keep mistaking me for someone who wants to achieve a particular result, when in fact I am someone who wants to have an open discussion. I disagree with your assessment (I don't believe this is a matter of 'compromise' but rather a matter of 'encyclopedic balance'. If the images don't help the article at all (as I believe) then why would we compromise with someone who wants to use them? You believe they have value, prove it to me, and then we'll start talking balance. And please note, I already suggested to you how the images could be retained meaningfully (with a section dedicated to discussing them). You chose to reject that approach, so now you have to justify their value on your own.
@Kww: that is something I can agree with - I have my own principles, as I have said repeatedly. You want to eliminate the principles I stand on; I only want to place some moderate restrictions on yours. who's being more reasonable? --Ludwigs201:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giving weight to religious sensitivities is not a moderate restriction on my principles, Ludwigs2. It's gutting them. If we were having a "reasonableness" contest, I'm confident I would prevail.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really!?! let's have one then - how shall we set the rules? I'll skip the fact that you've (again) implied my position is religious. As far as I can see the two extremes in this battle are (A) denying all 'sensibilities' (as you put it) and (Z) giving in to all 'sensibilities'. You're firmly ensconced at extreme A, while I'm on the Aish side of the median (remember, all I'm asking is that we allow discussion about these sensibilities for images that are not clearly necessary for the article). how is your position more reasonable than mine? --Ludwigs203:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs, we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is less reasonable than you, as you persist in the same intellectual dishonesty every time you post. You have no right to claim "not clearly necessary for the article" as if it were fact. Many editors here have opined that the images are quite clearly necessary. You argue from the tiny, tiny, minority POV that thy are not. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the famous river defense. You've tried to hang your hat on various ways to save the poor Muslims from having to look at pictures they don't like...WMF resolutions that don't apply, broadsides against WP:NOTCENSORED, "incidental images", argumentum ad Jimboem...and not a single one has really set the world on fire. I can imagine the frustration when someone just knows they're right and the world is a bunch of blind buffoons (never happened to me personally, but I have an awfully good imagination), but that doesn't really excuse making demonstrably false accusations here. I told you awhile ago that image removal would simply never happen; here we are, no closer to your goal. Isn't it about time to wind this down? Tarc (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, one part of this is getting beyond frustrating: what word do you want me to use for taking the religious objections of Muslims into account? I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and I haven't accused you of attempting to preserve your own, but I don't see how you can argue about millions of upset Muslims on one hand and then deny that you want to modify Wikipedia guidelines to take their religious beliefs into account on the other.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kww: it doesn't make a lot of difference which word you use - 'sensibilities' is fine, 'offense' is fine. I would prefer if you avoid personalization - and religion - and merely talked about controversial material, but... the problem is not with the word chosen, but with the efforts to squelch whatever-it-is in such an absolutist and uncompromising manner. You've decided that every personal and cultural preference that disagrees with your personal and cultural preferences is ipso facto an act of censorship, insist that such are not to be allowed any leeway of any sort under any circumstances, and are willing to fight tooth-and-nail over the most trivial manifestations of it in order to enforce you viewpoint. To me you look no different than the people you oppose, even down to your unceasing efforts to assert your extreme position as a norm.
I don't care one whit about religion: and by that I mean that I'm not here to support fundamentalist forms of Islam or the kind of militant secularism that you're pushing. I'm trying to get you all to settle down and use some common sense. You're locked into a battle over an issue that is of no consequence to that article whatsoever and making worlds of trouble over something that will not improve the encyclopedia in any significant way. it's ridiculous, and I don't 'get' why you don't see how ridiculous it all is. --Ludwigs215:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are using common sense; that you disagree with others does not mean that they are being illogical. For most here, common sense informs that we do not take into account a religious-based opposition to image portrayal. Removing the images deprives others of information about the subject; it is simply not an acceptable trade-off to appease a religious concern and short-shrift everyone else. I realize that this is yet another tangent you disagree on, i.e. images are unimportant to the article, but you are in the clear minority on that point-of-view as well. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mistaking you, Ludwigs. You want a specific result, and we're now into week two or three of your inability to accept that you won't get it. As to your suggestion of a depictions section, first, the argument that I (personally) reject it is unfounded. Second, the very fact that you are not arguing an equal lack of value to the calligraphy and other means of depicting Muhammad, and that you are not arguing as vehemently that they do not belong in any spot but a depictions section reveals the hypocrisy of your position. This is not, and never has been, about the "value" an image has. This has always been about images you don't like. I don't need to prove to you that the images have value because you have closed your mind and have shown you will move the goalposts as far as you need. I need only for the community to support my view, an consensus remains with me. Resolute15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images which can be moved, removed or replaced without changing the meaning of a section of the article are incidental.
This would be impossible to make sense of or apply in practice. Any image in an article contributes to its meaning. This is true even in the case of images that are unencyclopaedic. A childish drawing of a giant spunking cock in the article on Robert Kilroy-Silk, for example, ought to be removed if someone is really insisting. But there is no denying that the meaning of the article would thereby be changed.
And the idea that an image is incidental if it can reasonably be moved within the article just seems odd. --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, Monty: you are both thinking in exaggerated terms. We do not need NOTCENSORED to make the argument that there should be an image of Obama on his article - whether or not you consider the image 'incidental', there is no real reason to remove it. This whole discussion only applies to 'controversial' images where there is that added factor to be taken into consideration. And if a controversial image adds nothing to the topic of the article (what does a 'giant spunking cock' have to do with RKS?) then removing it does not change the meaning of the article in any real way. remember, 'meaning' in this sense is determined by its encyclopedic use, not by the personal meanings that editors might attach to the image.
Again, there is no way to make editors use common sense if they do not wish to. however, what we can do is try to keep policy from being used in ways that violate common sense.
Nomoskedasticity: your opinion is ill-considered. If Kww et al can only argue their side of the debate by making up cheap lies about my opinions and attitudes then I can't really stop them, but I can't respect them for it either. I don't mind if they criticize my behavior - sometimes my behavior is quite worthy of criticism, this I know, so that's justified - but their efforts at Geraldo-style psychologism are seriously worthy of contempt. if they cannot be sincere enough to deal with me fairly, then what use are they except to fill the page with bile?
I don't care who takes the lead on this - anyone who wants to lead, go for it! I'll speak my mind on the issues either way. --Ludwigs223:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Obama picture(s) and "there is no real reason to remove it". But think of the racists and white supremacists! Many of them will surely be offended to see a picture of an African American sitting in the presidential office, signing bills, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if there are racists and white supremacists who want to make that argument, please, let them. I'll make popcorn and sell tickets. There is nothing in policy that would support that position, and quite a lot that could be leveraged to oppose it.
You really don't get it , ASCII - I'm happy to let anyone make a content argument on wikipedia (safe in the assumption that policy and editorial judgment can handle whatever weirdness gets thrown at us). what I'm trying to do here is forestall a quirk of policy that is leveraged to suppress content arguments. We don't need NOTCENSORED to protect that image of Obama, because we have far better arguments that will do the job. We also don't need editors using NOTCENSORED to plaster controversial images wherever they like for no readily apparent reason. discrimination, please. --Ludwigs223:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that matter? But in fact, I'm not personally offended: I'm not a dualist, so religious squabbles over iconography strike me as silly. But by the same token (that I'm not a dualist) I see no particular reason to snub religious beliefs. Frankly, I think all religions are charmingly daft; I love the ritual and respect the beliefs, and think that all religions would be wonderful assets to humanity except that some people get so OCD about defending or attacking them. it's even worse now that secularism has become so prominent - hard-nosed secularists are just as bad in their way as religious zealots.
I got into this dispute because I assumed that people simply hadn't thought through the ramifications of their acts, and that a bit of discussion and refocusing would unwind the nonsense and let common sense happen. One of these days I'll learn better than to expect things like that, and on that day I suppose I'll leave the project forever. --Ludwigs201:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On an argument that has gone on for years the assumption is people don't understand ramifications of what they are doing? The only ramification I can identify is that people feel offended by things they see on based on religious grounds. The pictures are perfectly suited and hold the same value as any other religious leaders in similar circumstances. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With one possible exception, I think we all have a pretty good grasp of "irrelevant" at this point in the discussion: If some kid spams a penis picture—or a butterfly picture, or a picture of Queen Elizabeth—into Algebra, we revert it as vandalism and go about the rest of today's work. We don't say the butterfly picture is irrelevant and should be removed, but the equally off-topic penis picture has to stay so we can show off what a cool, not-censored kind of place Wikipedia is.
But let's get back to the (at least mostly) relevant pictures: Would anyone here actually defend an image of a sports car with a nude person standing next to it, if an image without a nude person is available? Does anyone think that choosing the zero-nudity-containing image actually violates this policy? (I didn't think this was such a difficult question, but nobody seems to be willing to answer it...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't have much relationship to the example that dominates this discussion, but I think Mohammed is a relatively poor example for the actual question, which is how we should address the over-invocation of NOTCENSORED by people who are trying to include "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article" (=the words from the RFC question).
So what counts "controversial content that adds little or no value to the article"? You and I agree that a car with a naked person standing next to it provides nothing educational to the reader (on the subject of automobiles, vs an image without a naked person).
Can we fairly generalize that particular example to a statement along the lines of "Pictures including naked humans, when the article is not about nudity, sexuality, or medical conditions" (and possibly other categories; feel free to suggest expansion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note recent addition to the offensive-material guideline
[12]. Not discussed it seems, but probably not very controversial. With 500 guidelines on the English Wikipedia, the advantage is always on the legislator's side when it comes to finding something that isn't watched much. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a constructive addition. It makes the essential point (we don't practice censorship) while cautioning against abuse of "we don't practice censorship". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree. I think all in all our policies and guidelines and such work quite well, the problem is when problematic editors try to make the policy fit where it isn't meant to, or use to to address every little thing every one may possibly find offensive. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In part, the Wikimedia Foundation's May 2011 resolution concerning controversial images says
Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers [...] "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. [...] We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement. [...] principle of least astonishment: [...] respect [readers'] expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
This policy presently says
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable where these materials are relevant to the topic. Discussion of any such potentially objectionable material should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.
But the Foundation goes further than this. It urges us to pay particular attention to the educational value of controversial content, not just relevance. Hundreds of thousands of images and statements may be relevant to a given article, but not all relevant material will have real educational value. I'd like to see this policy incorporate both of these elements of the Foundation resolution, educational use and principle of least astonishment, by replacing the above with the words of the Foundation
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
I think "respect the reader's expectations" sounds too much like an enjoinder to simply ensure that no-one is ever offended by anything, which is too much. Maybe "consider reader expectations". On a more minor point, "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, which a literal reading of the above would suggest. Maybe "particularly involving sexuality, violence or religion". I also think the first sentence of the existing paragraph should be retained. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"respects the conventional expectations of readers" is already part of the policy. With regard to "content of a ... religious nature" is not always controversial, does this clear up the ambiguity?
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and respect the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
With regard to retaining the first sentence, the purpose of this post is to argue that relevance alone is not enough to justify inclusion of any content, real educational value needs to be demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is differently worded so as to not to give the impression of an enjoinder. We are asked to follow a principle. In your version, "respect the reader's expectations" is too strong. What if a reader comments: "I don't expect to see human nipples on Wikipedia". What process would we go through in order to respect this?
I don't get your point about the existing first sentence. It doesn't say that relevance alone is enough, it just clarifies that controvesial relevant content is includable on WP. I think your proposal is unbalanced if it focuses only on what is not allowed. And the difference between "relevance" and "real educational value" is too opaque to be useful, I think. All information that is relevant to an encyclopaedia is, by definition, of real educational value, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. "Consider" rather than "respect." That is different from the Foundation's use of "least astonishment." And would give us
Pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain in categorization and placement.
which seems reasonable to me. With regard to the first sentence, I'm concerned that readers may take it that relevance alone is sufficient to justify inclusion of content, controversial or otherwise. Obviously educational merit, BLP, NPOV, etc, etc, also apply. Perhaps we could simply remove "where these materials are relevant to the topic"
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
Sorry FormerIP, I just noticed I didn't answer your question. I'm trying to make it clear that relevant means both related to the topic and important to the topic. At Talk:Muhammad/images we've proposed that there are degrees of image usefulness
misleading or harmful
useless - no relation to the topic
related to the topic but adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds to the readers' understanding of the article or section
adds enough to the readers' understanding of the article or section to justify the space it takes up (related, educational and (WP:DUE)
(edit conflict)I think that an image is more educational than an existing one is a valid reason to replace the image, however we must be extremely careful not to confuse the educational value of an image with the risk that prudish educational institutions may take offense to the image. That some readers or schools may find an image offensive makes it no less educational. Likewise, there should be no astonishment in finding a photograph of a human penis in the Human penis article. Really that is all common sense. The problem is that I think the foundations choice of words is nebulous, and can be read to suite the views of the reader. It can be read as consistent with current policy, or much more broadly. Monty84502:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, we know that the end result here is, our article on Muhammad will have the most common image of the figure, because for the remaining portion of the world that isn't of the Muslim religion that would be otherwise offended by the image, we are using it in an educational manner. That needs to be understood that is very much not likely to change. Ergo, the point of this exercise is to clear up that NOTCENSORED cannot be used to deny the use of material that a minority group would find patently offensive. This is in line with the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be very helpful if we establish, straight out, that the decision here does not apply to the Muhammad article, period. That issue has been through enough debate and comment that it bears the risk of just beating a dead horse to try and address it here. Would anyone oppose specifically exempting that article from any changes or consensus arrived at here, since there'a already a specific consensus there? SDY (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, (IMO) very very wrong. Policies and policy changes get applied uniformly with no bias due to religious beliefs. If you wish otherwise, then it is the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR which we need to be discussing changes to. Until then, your statement has no merit.ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, I may disagree with the outcome of this initiative (especially if it means wholesale removal of images from that article - overturning multiple consensus and an RfC and Village Pump proposal to keep the images), but I will still support the community's voice in it. Uniform. No exceptions (see my list above in the Comments section of Ludwigs2's "RfC"). etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think that is an unrealistic proposition. While no RFC here should be able to outright overrule the existing consensus at the Muhammad article, a policy shift here would unavoidably shift the statusquo there. The next time the debate starts in earnest at Muhammad, any change here WILL be used as a justification to reach a different consensus there, it may not sucseed, but it will be tried. It is also a terrible idea to explicitly exempt one article or subject from a general policy standpoint. Monty84503:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it may eventually affect that article, which is unavoidable, I just don't want to turn this discussion into yet another WP:COATRACK of that discussion. As far as blind and uniform application of policies to all articles I don't think that's necessarily a demand. While consensus can change on what to do over there, and the policy will inevitably be influenced by those discussions, we have to write this policy to apply to more than just Muhammad. SDY (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is already a coatrack of the Muhammad images debate. This discussion does not get started if not for all of the arguments there, so lets not pretend this is something it isn't. These proposals are a direct challenge to the prevailing view at that article, while the unintended consequences on other articles has not yet been explored or considered. Pretending that this isn't about that is just that: fantasy. Resolute16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, note that the 6 images of Muhammad we have in the Muhammad article are very far indeed from representing the way Muhammad is most commonly portrayed. That's the whole problem in that article. Such depictions were very rare. The mainstream representations of Muhammad are calligraphy and pictograms, and there is a very rich tradition of those. For background, see [13] We're demonstrating and propagating our ignorance of Islam by illustrating the Muhammad article like the article on Jesus. --JN46603:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we not vote on this yet? I've already changed my thinking somewhat thanks to input from FormerIP and I'd like to see more discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little too early, I agree. One thing to consider is bluelinking in some of the other policies and editing guidelines. The other thing I'd very much like to see is a a clear statement that controversial content can and should be removed if there is consensus to remove it. Redundant, perhaps, but I've seen some arguments over the past year that could be read as treating WP:NOTCENSORED as an absolute, which is obviously false, but some defensive writing (i.e. "cannot be misunderstood") on that account wouldn't hurt. SDY (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. The next time the article on Muhammad makes the news, we'll have a ton of IPs and single purpose accounts proposing removal of all images - and have to follow that consensus. Same applies for other controversial topics. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What sock/meat puppetry? And how would they know if (as another example) an editor simply made a few posts on some high trafficked Islamic forums? And, you KNOW that such results, regardless of how they found out about the images, will be argued forever as reason to remove them all by some of the very editors here who have already made such arguments. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm rapidly losing interest in this, because it appears that this is just a coatrack of the Muhammad discussion. A thousand voices with one argument do not win over six voices with five arguments. We are not a democracy. If nothing else, I'm bumfuzzled by the obsessive/compulsive nature of the discussion over the Muhammad article, and I'm going to go work on something useful in the encyclopedia instead of trade barbs with people. SDY (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Monty's comment, I've just searched this talk page archive for "astonishment" and "foundation" and can't find a discussion on this topic.
Does anybody have criticisms or suggestions wrt the latest iteration of my proposed change
Articles may include text, images, or links which are considered objectionable. Pay particular attention to placement and categorization of controversial content of a sexual, violent or religious nature. Determine whether the content has a realistic educational use, and consider the reader's expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
As per others, I dislike the "readers' expectations" portion. We are seeing that hashed out as well on the Muhammad article. I'd prefer "and consider ensure including such content fits within all of Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines such as (see my list above)" - those policies and guidelines really do cover pretty much every scenario brought up. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Yes, FormerIP objected to "respect readers' expectations" and recommended "consider readers' expectations." The principle of least astonishment is a specific recommendation of the foundation resolution wrt controversial content. And you are arguing that it doesn't belong in this policy. That, I guess, is what this thread is about: should the Foundation resolution be reflected in this policy? I'll be interested to hear what others have to say on that question, since it doesn't appear to have been discussed on this page before. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check this [14] out to get an idea of the battle ahead. During all of this, someone changed the disclaimer heading on the talk page to say something very different than what the consensus was. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Anthony: Just for clarification (as it appears some of my intent hasn't been clear to others), it's not the intent I disagree with - it is simply the ambiguity of the word. For instance, by applying WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, I think it covers some of the scenarios we've been talking about. Hopefully that makes what I am trying to say make more sense. I'm too tired to propose better wording right now - maybe tomorrow if you or someone else hasn't thought of something. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to including the principle of least astonishment, though I favour it. I'm more concerned to clarify that controversial content needs to have demonstrable real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need this kind of change. The foundation resolution was targeted at Commons, which was being used as a porn holding tank. Our policies and procedures are adequate to ensure that only images with relevance to an encyclopedia are kept, and additional language will only be used to justify the removal of material that shouldn't be removed.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't being used as a porn holding bank, that was a moral panic. Policy needs to make it clear that offensive material should have a demonstrable educational use if it is to be placed in an article. I don't think the resolution only addresses Commons, but have asked a board member for clarification. [15] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that was a moral panic. However, here is the problem: "Offensive material should have a demonstrable educational value if it is to be placed in an article". Most opponents are trapped in circular reasoning that educational merit is lacking because the images are controversial. But while some argue the controversy is a reason to remove images, I would argue that that same controversy is why they should stay. If they weren't considered educational, there would not be such high support for their retention. The educational value of these images has already been proven. Also, I would suggest that the removal of the image of Muhammad burning in hell showed that there is no need to alter this policy, because as Jimbo said on his talk page, this project has a pretty good handle on things. Material which is intended to be provocative has been removed. But material for which offence is incidental has not. This is appropriate, in my view. Resolute16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for other editors you characterize as opponents, but, assuming you include me in that group, I am capable of distinguishing between educational content and offensiveness. I cannot see that being controversial should ever be a reason to include an image that has no educational relevance to the article or section topic. With regard to the remainder of your comment, I'm not here to discuss Muhammad, there are plenty of other venues where you can do that :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, in various cases it is not that simple, and you are not able to distinguish such as an absolute by applying our own determination/opinion. And neither am I. Nor anyone else here. What may be educational to me may not be to you. And there will be a few issues/items/whatever where you will not be able to understand why I find something educational or vice-versa. If you rip your computer apart and pull all the components off the board and start writing up what each is, I will not find it educational in the least bit. I could point out what each component is while asleep with both hands tied behind my back. Betcha there are tons of people who would find it educational though. Now, back to the issue as I am stating it. There are things that fit into a category where people wont understand why something provides educational value (unlike my obvious example above). Does the article on a stove show detailed instructions on how to turn on the burner? No. No educational value - to us. It's about weighing what the community deems as educational. Not our beliefs. In this, it's a foregone conclusion that there is a lack of knowledge in this country on this topic. Thus, everything has a higher educational value for most our audience. Which doesn't apply to people like you or Jayen or such who are knowledgeable. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Respect the reader's expectations" is feel-good but meaningless drivel in the absence of well-designed surveys of the readership's reactions and expectations. As far as I can tell those surveys don't happen on Wikipedia. At best, Wikipedia editors are surveyed from time to time, and it's usually a highly-biased self-selected sample. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which balances contents based on how reliable sources deal with the material, not based on what a hypothetical and practically-never-properly-surveyed readership would like to see. [And be careful what you wish for. What if turns out that the people hitting the article on porn simply want to see lots of porn? Studies of internet bulk traffic and of Google top queries suggest this might be true. "The customer is always right?" We turn Wikipedia into a free porn site then?] On the other hand, simply adding that wording to the policy without doing any reader/customer studies [which is a far more likely scenario] just opens another gate for WP:Wikilawyers to argue "I know that it's offensive to the readers because such-and-such subset of the population objects to this material based on my deep gut feeling" as way to override WP:NPOV. So, I oppose this change as pointless verbiage at best and dangerously WP:CREEPy armament in the hands of POV pushers in more contentious cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any changes to the current policy of this kind. The entire premise of "particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature" is absolutely ridiculous. These are are different as can be. Sexual or violent material can be harmful to young people (I'm talking about Cock and ball torture etc. not nudity). Religious material is entirely different. "Religion" is a very very broad tent. I'm a church-goer myself and I think religion is great when it helps us address questions of our place in the universe, provides comfort, gives us guidance in being good people, and draws us together as a community. Stuff like taboos on eating pigs etc, though, is just rank superstition. Superstition gets mixed up with religion, and this is a problem. Avoiding idolatry is reasonable (idolatry arguably interferes with a truer connection to the Divine and so forth), so it's reasonable for Muslims to not build statues of Muhammed or pray to pictures of him. A taboo on any images of him anywhere is just superstition. I oppose giving any special-pleading rights to people's superstitions. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my wording reflects the Foundation resolution. I recommend it, as well as this study by two researchers commissioned by the board, and the report of the board working group. Please consider their arguments. The purpose is only to avoid unnecessary controversy, without sacrificing a jot of educational value. No one, in these two threads or at Talk:Muhammad/images is arguing we shouldn't use depictions of Muhammad. The argument is we shouldn't use them when they do not add to the readers' understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that kind of "research" was and is a waste of donated money. I've not seen any empirical evidence of what the readers expect in that study. Only two "expert" opinions. Those are a dime a dozen on a topic like this. Wanna buy some parental control software? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the expert's user page, half of which is dedicated to telling us who he isn't, just the relevant part: I'm actually the Robert Harris who has written a couple of books introducing newcomers to classical music and who has created a few series for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about music, most recently "20 Pieces of Music that Changed the World". (Music is my second career). Although for the time being, I'm happy to be known within the Wikimedia community as the consultant working on the study of "potentially objectionable" images. Speaks for itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all you have to offer is expert opinion, the you'd better be an expert. Applies to court proceedings and most businesses, especially those that spend their own money. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed changes. I don't actually see any problem. Of course, people are always going to make lots of noise about contentious issues like this - but prior consensus has established that it's not our job to make judgements about what is/is not 'offensive' - we should only be concerned with encycloapedic value, and appropriately neutral coverage. I think the 'least astonishment' remark is fine as it is. Chzz ► 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is controversial and adds nothing relevant to the readers' understanding, I believe we should not use it. We frequently use images that do not add to the readers' understanding (see the lead image at Pain), and I don't object to them usually, but I do when they are offensive or harmful. That's the intention of this proposed amendment, simply to avoid gratuitous controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps I'm too close to it. Wikipedia abounds with images related to the topic but that don't add relevant understanding. To argue such images off the encyclopedia using current policy, controversial or not, at least the way policy is presently interpreted, is impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you honestly believe that editors engaging in second guessing what "reader's expectation" might be does anything to alleviate that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That language is already in the policy. My proposed text clarifies that editors should make sure controversial content has relevant educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there in lies the catch; who determines educational value. Two people will almost never assign the same value to the same thing. I think it will just lead us back to square one personally since we have already seen different individuals put separate values on images. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could believe that. It is rather difficult to, however, when the goalposts are continually moved, as in this case. Resolute03:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All pictures have educational value: "a picture is worth a 1000 words." It comes down to editorial judgment whether it is relevant, and how it's relevant (eg. does it mislead) and that is determined by consensus. Perhaps reference to pictures used in other reference works, in this "controversial" arena, would be one helpful criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the subjectivity, potential for abuse, and harm to our content that the wording would produce as well as the implication by this proposal that policy should be based around the WMF, and not on internal community consensus. Defining content that is sexual, violent, etc as potentially offensive is injecting clear bias in our handling of that content. Everything has the potential to be offensive, and to decide only to treat material that is objectionable to the general population differently from material that is potentially offensive to smaller groups is showing a clear preference for the majority of readers. It also becomes troublesome to decide on what is potentially offensive to the majority of users, do we choose American societal norms, and place a preference for American readers over others? Or Western societal norms over Muslim? What this change is implicitly asserting by singling out violence, sex, and religion is that we should avoid info that is "potentially offensive to the general English speaking audience" which is clear WP:POV. Also, Wikipedia is a self-governing community that works on broad internal consensus, and should take WMF's recommendations as just that, and not as a incentive for uprooting long held policies.AerobicFox (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything" has the potential to be offensive? Here's the image from the lead of our article about apples. Can you tell me what could be offensive about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a radical environmental zealot, Wikipedia is ruining people's health by using images of genetically altered apples to represent the fruit instead of organic or heirloom apples. This is part of a growing trend on Wikipedia to represent fruit as it has become and not as it naturally is, please replace with a picture of an apple grown organically(as apples have been grown for the majority of history), and stop being part of the movement to poison people's diet with unnatural food. Etc, etc.
And believe me, these people are out there: www.amazon.com/review/R3TKTSOPJ83EXA/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=6305942331&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful(Link is blacklisted) Amazon Review of "The Tigger Movie"
I found this movie very disappointing. It was so full of low-level slapstick violence that it felt more like a warner brother's cartoon than a Winnie the Pooh Movie. While the story was a sweet message, Eeyore's home being smashed by a rock and roo crashing into closets concerned my two year old deeply. What happened to a great storyline without the bells and whistles of violence to move it along? I'll stick to the Blustery Day. Once again, Disney gets a D-.
I don't see the Amazon reviewer claiming to be offended. Do you? "I don't like to show violent storylines to my child" is not the same thing as "I'm offended by this movie".
As for your creative apple response, it appears to me that the apple in question is a Fuji, which is a "natural" cross that originated decades before genetic engineering was even possible. Do you want to try again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't really feel a need to "try again" at explaining something to you. How incredibly petty to even tell another to do that. Unless you wish to make a counter argument that argues that "potentially offensive" things are limited in scope you are not adding anything by making potshots at others posts. Yes, the vast majority of Fuji apples we eat are genetically modified(here are their patents); whether I should have said "virtually everything" as opposed to "everything" or "offended/shocked/disgusted/any other negative reaction" on top of "offended" will not move this discussion any further.AerobicFox (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even "virtually everything". The vast majority of images we use, as we use them, have basically zero potential for offensiveness.
BTW, you might like to read a bit about plant patents. Patents are not restricted to genetically engineered items; they are also freely assigned to anyone who happens to be the first person to notice a naturally occurring mutation. All of the patents I checked in your list involved zero genetic engineering:
"The new variety of apple tree, `Moana` was discovered as a limb sport mutation of a `Nagafu-6` (unpatented) Fuji apple tree which was then growing in a cultivated orchard controlled by the inventors, and which is located at Upper Moutere, Nelson,New Zealand in May, 1996, during routine orchard operations."
"The new Malus `FUJIKO` was discovered by the inventors, Michelangelo Leis and Carlo Mazzola, in the summer of 2002 in a block of Fuji apple tree designated as `NAGAFU 12` (unpatented), growing in a cultivated area of an orchard in Migliaro,Ferrara, Italy."
"The present invention relates to a variety of an apple tree obtained by branch mutation and by selection of the variety Fuji. "
"The new cultivar `Candy` originated as a limb sport mutation of `Aztec` Fuji (not patented). It was discovered by the inventor in a cultivated orchard at Upper Moutere, Nelson, New Zealand."
"virtually zero potential" is still the same as "potential" which images will always have on offending somebody. Yes, it is true that there are currently no commercially grown genetically modified apples, but you could just as well alter the example person to being against cloned apples. Heck, if you want to be really hypothetical then there could be someone with a religion who believes Apples are holy fruit that should not be illustrated. If it makes you feel better you can change "everything" to "a lot of our images" although it still does not change my argument. There are going to be people offended by the presence of any sexual image, offended by historic racist drawings, uncovered women, animal mating, depictions of religious deities, depictions of animal violence, depictions of pigs roasted over an open flame, depictions of children playing in traffic, running with knives, or drinking underage, etc, etc. The list of things with the potential to offend somebody is unmanageable unless you narrow it down to what will offend a certain segment of the population, and catering to that segment is POV.AerobicFox (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put the Foundation resolution forward not as an edict for us to obey, but as a proposition to consider. I am addressing the use of controversial images only where their use is of no real didactic value; the kind of image that WP:IUP expressly identifies as worthy of avoiding:
(Images) should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter
Wikipedia abounds with images that fail to conform to this policy. I am proposing that, when content is controversial, we should pay particular attention to whether it conforms to IUP in that respect and, if not, apply IUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning no disrespect to your proposal, but the current wording of WP:NOTCENSOR already states as much. The only differences I see(apart from emphasis) with your proposal is the addition of these parts:
all kinds of potentially controversial content
Determine whether controversial content has a realistic educational use
respect the reader's expectations
The problems I have with these changes are:
In practice "potentially offensive" = potentially offensive to general Western societal norms, which is not global or inclusive of smaller subgroups
This is really more directed at determining whether or not to host controversial content on Commons(to whom this paragraph was addressed to). It is talking about "categorization and placement" and is referencing arguments over there concerning whether we should be deleting controversial content that likely won't have any use on any of the Wikiprojects. The statement as written would need to be changed to addressing the illustrative/informative value of media on the article, and not "educational purpose" or "categorization", etc.
This is subjective and allows potential for POV abuse by replacing realistic images with less graphic ones to downplay the topic, as well as other problems.
Oppose changes. This seems to be an end-run by those espousing a minority viewpoint about the propriety of displaying historic representations of middle eastern deities. Unable to fillibuster or edit war their way to a reversal of policy, now they take another tack.Losing one battle in a long and thoroughly disruptive war of attrition in the name of political correctness, they start another. The policy is well-established and works fine, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one. Again, no one. One more time, no one here is discussing middle eastern deities. You have accused me of engaging in fillibuster (sic), edit war, and end-run (whatever that is). I know I'm not guilty of the first two. Please strike your completely uninformed comment, as it may confuse or mislead others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5/ non-content pages may indeed have restrictions on content as their role is supportive (eg WP:UP),
Try this wording:
Wikipedia is a neutral reference source, serving a worldwide audience of many ages, from many cultures and many needs, so it contains a very broad range of information and illustrative media. Content is decided on every one of our 60,953,807 pages by members of the public who visit our site and edit our articles (You can too!).
Our encyclopedia pages are not censored. They will not always contain just the content you expect. They contain whatever editors feel is appropriate or reasonable for the page to serve its entire audience. In some cases this may breach your personal social or religious norms, perhaps very strongly. Since changes may be made by anyone, inappropriate material may sometimes appear before it can be removed, although obviously inappropriate content (such as clear vandalism, clear copyright breach, or material clearly illegal for us to host) is usually removed very quickly. Restrictions apply in two main areas.
2. Content on "community" pages (rather than "encyclopedia" pages) are subject to different considerations, since their function is to support the community which makes Wikipedia possible. Some kinds of content are generally agreed to be unproductive for that purpose and may be forbidden, or hidden or deleted if posted.
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should generally seek to focus on its [[informational value and policy compliance in a given article (including accuracy, neutrality and sourcing). "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Under- or over-stated content is usually reason to fix–or discuss fixing–the issue if practical. Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws or rules of organizations forbidding information about the organization to be displayed online, because organizational rules only affect their members and Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.
Benefits:
Explains why it's not censored
Explains that members of the public create our content and "you can too" - key information since the most common question of someone whose complaint about objectionable content is rejected is to try and identify who is responsible for content on Wikipedia
Simplifies the classic "not censored" issues people may hit
Explains the main areas we do restrict content in mainspace and community space - one of the most common ways WP:NOT#CENSORED gets referenced is editors who try to argue that "not censored means I should be allowed to say what I choose and add what I want". A quick summary of where and how we do restrict content is likely to be helpful.
It's a vast improvement. One concept I would add is that the determination "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" should always "be guided by reliable sources". Well done, FT2. --JN46607:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Appropriate to" is the problem, it's vague, uninformative, and will be hijacked anyway to mean "appropriate for children, for modesty, etc". Edited - "informational value" is much harder to hijack and also closer to (and more exactly) what we do consider. Good catch. FT2(Talk | email)07:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Informational or educational value is good, but that such value exists should be demonstrated by recourse to reliable sources that share that view. Otherwise we're again hoplessly into OR territory ("well, I find it useful"). --JN46607:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed here - cannot explain every policy here. It explains they need to convince others there is a lack of informational value, and that puts the debate in the right kind of arena, if they convince others well and good, if they use poor sources and poor arguments they won't convince anyone. I did add "and policy compliance" which covers RS but also a range of other things too. Reasonable? FT2(Talk | email)07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Also whether it has value is often subjective, and needs editorial consensus. I'm thinking of the kinds of debate which focus on whether a given image is "appropriate" for an article. That decision has to be made editorially and the correct focus will be its value (or lack of value) to that article. There won't be RS to decide such things, just community views. So you can't assume RS will be how such debates are solved. Many settle based on whether editors feel the disputed image or text is "good for the article" (ie its informational value in one way or another) as reckoned subjectively by participants in the debate. FT2(Talk | email)08:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Certainly not unreasonable—I agree it's covered by your links to due weight and Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/Content ("Basically, Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, viewpoints and summaries that already exist and are expressed elsewhere.") But the mode of discussion you describe is in my view part of the problem, because of its subjectivity, and its lack of recourse to sources. Take the example Hans Adler gave, of the editor who kept inserting his photograph of a woman in the process of defecating into the defecation article, defending it with NOTCENSORED. I would argue that the best course of action in such a case is not to ask, "Do you guys think this image is informational, or appropriate?", or "Do you think it correctly illustrates the article topic?" It's "Do reliable sources demonstrate that this kind of image is educationally useful, by including it?" If they do, fine; if they don't, it goes, whether it illustrates the article topic or not. We are not here to define new editorial standards of our own making; we are here to reflect existing expressions and presentations of knowledge. Cheers. --JN46608:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case the discussion's a different one. The question you raise is more "what standard do we have for deciding an item (eg image) is okay in a given article?" That one is a genuinely thorny issue so it's not one I have engaged here. Some will completely disagree that your view on the appropriate criterion is "correct". For example a valid rebuttal might be: "Just because a given concept hasn't been illustrated a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to do it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." (I say that just to show there is a genuine open question in your post, not to debate the point)
What we can say without going into that territory is, the locus of the decision will be its informational value. Although users might disagree how we assess that value (use in RS might be one method) in all cases they are trying to estimate somehow its value in providing information to the reader. So this at least places the debate in the right arena, people posting an objection are told to consider its value to a reader (but no specific stipulation how to assess that value, because no policy mandates how we assess that value) and its policy compliance as their main points. It's close enough for today in the sense it marginally improves from before. From there on it's like xFD in the sense that every discussion will be unique so the best we can do today is say that this is broadly the right kind of arena. If consensus is ever reached on a general rule, today isn't the day it happens. FT2(Talk | email)08:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter the "cutting edge" argument by saying it is intellectually inconsistent with the entire premise of Wikipedia, formalised in the dawn of the project: that we reflect reliable sources. We are not writing text with a mindset that says, "Just because a given concept hasn't been written about in a given way before doesn't mean it isn't more useful to readers to write about it that way, on the cutting edge of spreading knowledge we should not assume it." Putting talk page consensus as to "what would be a useful thing to say here" above what reliable sources say is anathema to every sourcing policy we have. It is an odd and, it seems to me, not consciously rationalised act of splitting to think that we should treat text one way, firmly binding ourselves to the judgment of reliable sources, and handle illustrative media in a completely different way, where local editor consensus is the supreme arbiter. I agree this won't be hashed out today, and as Anthony says, this may not be the best place to start, but it is worth thinking about. So enough for now. As things stand, I support your rewrite as a better reflection and summary of the interaction between the NOTCENSORED principle and other policies and guidelines. Cheers. --JN46609:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made an edit to the last para[16] - 1/ simplified 1st sentence (no need to say both in positive and negative), 2/ noted that "compliance" implies accuracy/neutrality/sourcing since otherwise it's not clear if this sentence covers factual errors, 3/ added that under or overstatement (ie WEIGHT) is resolved by fixing not removing where possible. Last para flows a bit better and provides a brief guide to "ok it's not censored but I think it needs fixing, now what?"FT2(Talk | email)10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this proposal is massive WP:CREEP. It does not belong in a policy. It lacks any discernible focus. It might be suitable for a personal essay though. Point 2 (in the boxed text) in particular is simply a repetition of the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site" section. And the essence of point 1 (also in the boxed text) is better worded in the current policy without the massive mash-up of stuff addressed in other sections of the policy, e.g. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". The other stuff (how many pages there are, "you can edit!") is simply distracting in the extreme. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this, but I'm concerned that it might not make the point of relevance sufficiently clear. Consider an image of an automobile with a naked person standing next to it. This image has "informational value": It tells you (1) what a naked human looks like, (2) that naked humans exist in modern/technological society, (3) that some person—perhaps from our pro-naturist community of editors—wanted this image in the article, etc. But the presence of the naked human in the image doesn't provide any informational value about automobiles. We may need an explicit reference to being on-topic, editorial judgment, or least surprise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point for this policy is that we don't censor - arguments to remove or replace the image should focus on the value (mission statement) and policy/guideline compliance of the image in the article (we have policies/guidelines on image saliency/shock images/etc) and not on mere "objectionability". If it's in the grey area then "what value does an image with a naked person add to our article for a reader wishing to learn about X?" is exactly the kind of thing someone objecting should consider, rather than just IDONTLIKEIT.
My core concern is, it's almost (in a way) seeking to hijack "censorship" to cover something that is better classed under content criteria. On this page the piont is we don't censor but we may remove content or images if editors agree it doesn't enhance the article (ie insufficient value to the article) or doesn't comply with policies/guidelines. FT2(Talk | email)17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am so very seriously against the removal of the religious/secular portion of the last paragraph. There are way too many articles I watch because of massive POV/BIASED changes attempted by or on behalf of various religious sects. Anyone remember Scientology or LDS or similar? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While those matter, a policy on Wikipedia not being censored, isn't the right place to go into the many POV dispute issues we handle. In this case the kind of religion that has such issues is pretty clearly covered by the word "organization" so it's sufficient. The church is an organization as well as a religion. Scientology is an organization as well as anything else it might be considered. We don't need to specify "organization, religion, group, band, company, country, ethnicity" - we're making the point that if you have internal rules on not publishing information, Wikipedia isn't bound by them. That's all we're saying here. "Organization" is sufficient for this policy since any group with rules presumably has some organization to establish and enforce them internally and we're just making the point "if you have rules, they aren't enforcable here". Hope you can agree this does the job. It does need expanding elsewhere, but that's usually part of NPOV, RS and WEIGHT not censorship. FT2(Talk | email)17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undiscussed change to WP:NOTCENSOR?
I just realized that this change was made to WP:NOTCENSOR about a month ago which I don't agree with and which I cannot locate any discussion on. This edit primarily added in the line:
Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.
My own qualms with this are:
Just because the WMF states "We support the principle of least astonishment" along with other things they support does not mean it should be worked into an existing policy without some form of discussion. Why was this added and not any other part? Furthermore the statement "We urge the Commons community to... and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" does not readily seem to apply to adding images to articles on Wikipedia.
I don't believe a community consensus could be formed on just what "conventional expectations of readers" are. It is a better guideline to focus on placing the most illustrative, descriptive, informative, etc, images than it is to try and decide what the reader will expect and react to that. In practice this could be used to justify replacing accurate, medically relevant wounds/diseases with less graphic images that are less representative. As an example: in our classes in the US we were often times shown disturbing images of car crashes and the effects of drugs and tobacco, such a policy could be implemented by a tobacco employee or an editor for the legalization of drugs to censor out the more disturbing(but relevant) images of negative effects. The examples for the potential of abuse are numerous, editor X saying "I think we should show less graphic images on the (abortion/holocaust/animal testing/etc) article per least astonishment"
I moving to remove this then as it seems like it could be a hassle in the future, leading to arguments centered around subjective judgements of what readers expect instead of whether the image objectively/realistically illustrates the topic.AerobicFox (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above in one of the huge threads that I couldn't find a discussion for it either. While we must respect foundation policy, I don't think the board statement is nearly specific enough to be an actionable requirement for us to add it. I agree completely with point two, we are never going to be able to agree on anything approaching an objective standard regarding its application. It should be removed. Monty84523:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the Foundation resolution is guidance, and it's up to us whether we pay any attention. That's what's sparked this discussion. It's been mentioned on two article talk pages recently. Muhammad and Pregnancy. According to Jimbo, the advice applies across projects, but was prompted by problems at Commons. I confess I'm struggling with the applicability of the "principle of least astonishment" and see potential problems with the "community expectation" language. But I'd like to hear many more views on that before deciding anything there.
The part I understand, and believe could be better emphasised here, is the advice to pay particular attention to determining whether controversial content has a realistic educational use. I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo that we usually do a pretty good job in that, but I think it deserves emphasising. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Adler, in an earlier discussion, gave the example of an editor who insisted on including a photograph of a woman in the process of defecating, seen from below, in the article defecation, citing NOTCENSORED. Reputable educational sources wouldn't include such an image, so if we do, it violates the principle of least astonishment. --JN46602:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is one application of the principle. But, we do have a wider brief than EB or a scholarly text. "Just like EB" is too constrained, in my opinion, but "We don't care about astonishing out readers" is too loose. But thanks, I'm beginning to get the picture, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
Agreed, but it is the community collaborating together who need to determine how to apply it and what policy to add it to. Yet, Ludwigs2 adds it to CENSOR and then starts on his single purpose objective.
It's clear from the section above this one that the WMF has trouble implementing its side of the resolution (the personal image filter), and its Executive Director appears to have postponed plans for that indefinitely. It makes no sense to introduce elements of that resolution which can't be solved at Wikipedia editors' level into a Wikipedia policy, e.g. the parts about reader choice/expectations. The so-called "principle of least astonishment" appears to be just a nebulous way to express that issue as well, if you read the original WMF statement, so I support removing that part as well, as it's not something Wikipedia editors can implement. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any problem with that addition. It's what the Foundation board said. Generally, just like our text reflects the standards of our sources, so should our approach to illustration. Otherwise we are engaging in a form of OR. --JN46602:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF text refers to the reader's choice, not the sources' choice; see section below for what the WMF might actually mean by "least astonishment". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought readers' expectations are formed by the publishing standards they are familiar with. We are not trying to be "different" from our sources; our entire edifice of sourcing guidelines exists to ensure we aren't, and the very definition of NPOV is that we should accurately reflect the views expressed in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. If we do that, readers familiar with our sources will not be "astonished". --JN46603:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to ascertain what will astonish the reader will always be OR. You seem to be saying that we should conform Wikipedia to style of more traditional sources to not astonish the reader, but many readers today are more familiar with Wikipedia than with traditional sources, and Wikipedia is different for a variety of reasons: we aren't restrained by the costs of printing color images, we have unlimited space for going in depth on articles and for creating new articles, etc. NPOV means that we represent sources in a neutral fashion, it has nothing to with emulating their method for representing the material(which would be a copyright violation).AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the style of "more traditional" sources, but reputable sources, the kind we allow as sources for our text. Clearly there are differences: we are a website, and most of our sources are not; we can't use the exact same media as our sources if they're copyrighted, etc. But in general our editorial judgment reflects the judgment of our sources. --JN46604:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that, where there is a choice of equally educational images (and there usually is) and one is more obviously shocking than another, we should go for the less shocking one, and determining that will be a matter of judgment and consensus.
Many editors here are reasonably concerned that careless wording of this "least astonishment" principle may be used to remove educationally important content because it's shocking or upsetting to some, without replacing it with equally or more educationally valuable content. Sloppy wording here might lead to the educational value of an article suffering on the alter of sensibility. Any change along the lines of the Foundation resolution would need to be very precise about the supremacy of real educational value over the principle of least astonishment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in broad agreement with you, though there may be exceptions. Basically I would always like us to look for precedent in the best sources to legitimise the use of an image. There are some horrific images (of the holocaust for example) that the highest-quality sources have seen fit to include, because they are needed to make the reader understand what happened. In such a case, a less shocking image may indeed be less educational. But the principle is that we should look to high-quality sources for guidance as to due weight for a shocking image, just as we do for text. --JN46604:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do like that position, and will consider it in future image choices, but I'm not sure it's home is here, perhaps in a badly needed expansion of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content. Here, at WP:NOTCENSORED, if the Foundation resolution has anything to inform this policy on, I'm leaning towards something more like emphasising "Where the same educational effect can be achieved without dismaying the reader, choose not to dismay the reader." But I repeat myself. (See the thread below this one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with emphasizing that though, IMO, is that it deemphasizes this:
"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."
I believe that emphasis should be given to the relevance and usefulness of the image to the article, and that by emphasizing choosing the least shocking image you are drawing attention away from the relevance of the image and emphasizing its potential to offend. The proposal's wording may also unintentionally lead to editors falsely equivocating the usefulness of two different images. No two images are ever going to have exactly the same educational value, and what this will inadvertently do is open the door to editors to try and replace offensive images with watered down images by arguing they both illustrate the same thing as much, an example being certain editors in Commons who believe illustrations are a complete substitute for actual images of sexual topics. This seems like unnecessary WP:Instruction creep and it may lead to arguments becoming centered around "Does the slight gain in realism outweigh the potential to offend" instead of "Is this image a superior image".AerobicFox (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot in good faith or with any honesty say I've got strong disagreements with most of what's posted above. I don't. There I think is only one point I have a... disagreement (not quite the correct word) - and that's the "of equal educational value" part. The image also needs to portray the same educational content - which the image substitutions proposed cannot. Both provide equal educational value - but not on the exact same topic. It's like comparing math to science. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN06:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "least astonishment" might mean
The WMF board simply copied that expression from the 2010 Harris report (search threads above for background on that), so here is what the report says:
“
What we are recommending is that there be an option prominently visible on all WMF pages (like the Search Settings options on Google), available to registered and non-registered users alike, that, when selected, will place all images in Commons Categories defined as sexual (penises, vulvas, masturbation, etc.) or violent (images of massacres, lynchings, etc.) into either collapsible or other forms of shuttered viewing, wherever these images might appear on WMF sites. The rationales for this are several. Images of sexuality and violence are necessary components of Wikimedia projects for them to fulfill their mandates to be open, free and educational. However, these images – of genital areas and sexual practices on the one hand, or mass graves and mutilated corpses on the other – will inevitably still have the power to disturb some viewers, especially if they are children, or if they are happened upon unintentionally. The point of the “button” we’re proposing is to help alleviate that surprise and dismay, by making the images unavailable for viewing without a second command. Often, within the Wikimedia world, this is referred to as the principle of least astonishment, or least surprise. In our view, it needs to be strengthened.
On the other hand, we believe that this command should only delay the presentation of these images, not prevent the presentation of these images. Consistent with principle 7 we enumerated in our first part, we believe access to information on WMF sites should be compromised only as little as need be to satisfy our responsibilities to respect and serve all our audiences. In our view, a shuttered, rather than a deleted image, satisfies those responsibilities. We selected the Category approach to this shuttering because we thought it would be the simplest to administer.
Interesting. This issue arose from editors (well, one editor, really) pushing "least astonishment" as a reason to hide nipples at Pregnancy. Nipples are not "penises, vulvas, masturbation, etc." HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had read the Harris report, and the board working group report, but still struggle finding principle of least astonishment's relevance here. Sometimes I'm slow on the uptake. I'll think about it for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the relationship to the (real) principle is just "application of sensible defaults". However, there are no sensible defaults for some controversial stuff. E.g. images of spiders cause problems for some but not all readers, and so do images of Muhammad. The Wikipedia essay (linked above) speaks of satisfying "the average reader", which if it existed, the WMF would not need to worry about personal image filters. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always begin from the position there's something I'm not getting in these situations, because history has nearly always proven that to be the case. I'm thinking, "don't gratuitously shock or offend readers." With emphasis on "gratuitously." Meaning (to repeat what I just said to Jayen above) "If you can achieve the same or better educational effect without dismaying readers, choose not to dismay them." We could also encompass the Goatse decision with something like "This is an encyclopedia and grossly offensive content whose sole purpose is to shock or offend has no place here" (if that's a reasonable description of the Goatse principle).
I can understand that though since a spider isn't really needed to illustrate a fear of spiders, and since people going to that article may have arachnophobia(although if it came down to it and an image was needed I would fall on the side of including it). On an article on spiders though we would definitely include images of spiders since they would be necessary to illustrate the article, and arachnophobes would just have to accept that they may see spiders if they go to a spider article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of least astonishment means that users should never be surprised by content they were not expecting to encounter on Wikimedia sites. If you click on an article about cycling, you do not expect to see images of nude cyclists. If you click on an article about locks, you do not expect to see graphic images of - for example - sexual bondage. The image hiding feature allows you to make decisions for yourself that will reduce these possibilities.
[18] shows how one particular editor is interpreting the term - it is "too astonishing" to summarize death tolls found in the body of an article in the lede <g>.
Per WP:ASTONISH the lead should not start with attempts to astonish the reader (such as the given total victim numbers.
I had not known that essay before - but it surely uses a far different meaning of "least astonishment" than the WMF presumably intends, and extremely far from the technical use of the term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's far too much. Something that is "astounding" should be something that should not normally be part of the coverage of a topic in an education manner and through presentation. The number of victims of a mass murder is a necessary fact about that crime, though one may be surprised by how large the number turns out to be, that's not the "astounding" information that we're concerned with. It's more considering "astounding" as "is this really connected to this article" and "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?" --MASEM (t) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of victims of a mass murder is a necessary fact - of course it is necessary if it is a fact indeed, that is if we know that for sure and it is not surrounded by controversy and manipulation. But in the case with Mass killings under Communist regimes we do not know actually and precisely how much people were killed by Communist regimes, because there were too many different Communist regimes and too many different events argued to be 'mass killings'. We have just estimates by some authors which significantly differ because of different interpretations of what events and categories of deaths are included into mass killings. Deaths from hunger (where hunger resulted from or was aggravated by by state politics), deaths of people imprisoned by the state (both from hardships and from old age, both for political and petty criminal crimes), etc. - are these really 'mass killings'? Just imagine the amount of controversy in the topic.
As for the astonishing 100 mln figure, even the co-authors of the guy who produced it disagree with the very approach of using such total figures - please read this explanation by another editor. I'll cite here just this fragment, relevant to the astonishment:
The motif is obvious: a reader, who will not probably read the article as whole, after seing the first sentence will say: "Look, Hitler killed just 6 million Jews, and Communist killed 100 million people. Definitely, Communism is much more deadly than Nazism."
This 100 million people is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the readers.
It's more considering "astounding" as "is this really connected to this article" and "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?" - As was explained in the discussions on the talk page of the article, the controversial figure is just inserted to the lead and is not discussed, along with its criticism, in the body of the article. Therefore the question "is this really connected to this article" is not entirely irrelevant. And the question "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?", if we take the total numbers for an illustration of the topic, is quite relevant. The least dramatic way to represent these numbers would be first to explain all the problems with making exact definitions of what was 'mass killing' and what was not, as well as the problems with making a sum from many controversial statistics, from many countries and events, from many different categories of deaths. GreyHoodTalk16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let's all be 100% honest. "Least astonishment", from the day it was written until now, has solely been used for (and understood as, by those who use it) "this offends my beliefs, and that trumps whether or not numerous others find these images educational and informative". I've concluded days of digging, and that is all I have found. Everything else, including the larger quote above, is already covered in other policies and guidelines.
Now, if someone wants to prove me wrong, I've got two suggested routes you can take (if you can think of another, by all means do so): since this resolution, (1) find me ANY instance where current policies didnt cover an issue and the resolution's "least astonishment" section was trotted out, or (2) find me ANY instance where the resolution's "least astonishment" section was trotted out for ANYTHING OTHER THAN "this offends my/his/their beliefs, thus I'll use this resolution and ignore numerous people claiming they find the image(s) educational and informative"
To GrayHood's point, if the figure of mass murders is a contested number but trying to be forced in, say, the lead, as a means to surprise or draw the readers attention, that's covered by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as well as WP:V. Eg, if the number if unsure, you don't use the upper, questionable bound (say "as many as 100 million"), you use the lower, verified bound ("at least 1 million") - that is, always use the conservative statement if there's a questionable range on it. Using the former is a form of astonishment, but not one that needs to be called out as a problem per the Foundation since other policies nix that type of approach in the bud. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lowest total of estimates appears to be about 85 million (using lowest for each case, and zero for contested cases). The claim is also made that a lede should not add up figures to give low to high estimate totals, but should only say "tens of millions" which I suggest would really astonish those who read the sources. I responded that a summary was a ... summary, and does not need a separate reliable source for simple addition <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the statement "with estimates in the tens of millions" is better than any synthesis addition. It is a rough order of magnitude that establishes why this is an important piece of history, and while an "astounding" figure of merit to a reader discovering this piece of information for the first time, it's still not the type of astonishment that we're needed to avoid from the Foundation's statement because it is still a verifiable and necessary fact to state about the piece of history. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this sort of wording. To give an example, at Sue Gardner's talk in London a few days ago, a woman editor brought up the Russian Wiktionary entry for "woman", which at one time was illustrated with what she described as a vintage porn image [19] that she thought was quite offensive and "inappropriate". I think most of us would agree that the picture she put in instead is "more appropriate". [20]
The question is, if there is a dispute about it, on what grounds is someone like her supposed to argue that the previous image was "not appropriate", if we specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter? By saying what we are saying, we are automatically slanting the playing field against editors in her situation. The previous image undoubtedly showed a "woman". (Arguably it showed more of her than the replacement image). So people can wiki-lawyer forever and a day that the nude image is just as "appropriate" or better than the clothed one, because the only thing that speaks against it is potential offensiveness, and that, we say, is not an argument anyone should make or listen to. Do we want to be totally insensitive?
The difficulty is that material is not inherently offensive or objectionable. Some people do object to certain kinds of material -- and they do so from particular culturally situated points of view. The problem with using phrases like "objectionable material" or "offensive material" is that they imply that such feelings are universal, and for any given case that implication will be untrue. I feel offended by the image of human beings nailed to crosses, but I don't expect my feelings to carry weight in editing decisions. Perhaps we don't want to be "totally insensitive", but drawing lines in this area is going to be very difficult and it might be better to focus on educational value rather than getting bogged down in endless discussions about whose feelings of offense are going to matter and whose aren't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion thread was prompted by Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principle_15. The trouble is that the only reason militating against having a nude image as the lead image for a "woman" entry in one of our projects is offensiveness to large numbers of readers. And we say in so many words that that argument should carry zero weight within Wikipedia. No other argument can really be made against a well-executed nude image. Discounting offensiveness, a nude image is as "encyclopedically useful" and accurate as a clothed lead image, arguably even more so (showing more of the woman, and less of the clothes). The same is true about the photograph of a woman in the process of defecating (seen from below) that an editor sought to include in defecation a while ago, citing NOTCENSORED. The image was accurate and illustrated exactly what the article was about, yet it was deeply inappropriate, and the only reason was its offensiveness. (It was deleted from Commons, and the user was site-banned, although his argument was actually fully in line with policy as written.) The way to demonstrate educational value is, or ought to be, the use of the same kind of image in reputable sources.
If reputable sources use a shocking picture (e.g. rape of Nanking, Holocaust), then so should we. (This applies even if there is only a significant minority of reputable sources using such images – per WP:NPOV, we must present significant minority views, even if offensive.)
But if they don't (e.g. Goatse), then neither should we, and EOD.
Anything else is inconsistent with the sourcing and verifiability principles (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc.) this project and all its content are built on. --JN46609:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a proposal:
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources.
Undue weight is already abused constantly to mean "This controversy/content/claim/criminal charge isn't what someone/something was originally famous/notable for therefore the article shouldn't have any mention of it". Undue weight as an editing policy was meant to refer to articles as a whole, not to particular bits of an article. It was never meant to be solely exclusionary. A proper solution to an undue weight problem is also to expand the more appropriate sections, but in practice, this is rare. I don't think that undue weight should be invoked in this context, because it just reinforces the inappropriate, exclusionary, use of the guideline to apply to atomic bits of content. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "due weight" advisedly, because the due/undue door swings both ways. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." If fair presentation of a significant minority (or majority) viewpoint requires inclusion of text or media that may be offensive, then it should be included (I believe that was an issue in the abortion case). The important principle is that we follow sources. Are you okay with the rest of the wording? --JN46615:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources would we be using as reliable is one question that comes to mind. Also the founders were fairly clear (at least in my mind) that they didn't want to turn wikipedia into essentially an online version of EB. I dislike the idea of taking precedent from other areas when we can simple apply common sense. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are well defined in WP:IRS, and represent an extremely wide range of publications with very diverse editorial styles, some widely divergent from the EB house style. Let's remember that all our text is tied to reliable sources by policy. We don't use text that cannot be found in at least some reliable source. If this is our threshold for text, it is common sense to expect that our illustrations should likewise be of a type that at least some reliable sources have used. Now, I am well aware that images are not the same as text. A copyrighted source image cannot be cited and summarised the same way a copyrighted text passage can, but the underlying principle for illustrations is no different from text in terms of WP:OR, WP:DUE, etc. We are trying to reflect reliable sources. Or would you argue that we need to give Wikipedia the freedom to use media that no reliable source would use, regardless of how insensitive such image use might be? And if so, would you also argue that Wikipedia texts should have the freedom to contain views and arguments that no reliable source would present? --JN46623:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to have some guidance as to what issues should be considered (e.g. relevance, value). But I do not agree that deleting the sentence "Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" is an improvement to this policy. I think that sentence is useful in telling us that "offensiveness" is not a key issue for editing decisions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sentence is needed. The complete paragraph would read:
However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. --JN46600:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally agree with the above, the one place where there needs to be added concern is the lead image. (This issue was brought up somewhere else recently for image use policy so why I'm aware of it). Because of how we present articles, we need to assume the lead image is going to be the image that readers will visually connect to the topic in the future; it is also unavoidable to see that image if you are loading up that Wikipedia page for the first time, so an unexpected image is going to be shocking. (This does not apply to anywhere else in the article, only the lead image). Thus, the lead image should be one we want associated with the topic in the most unshocking, unbiased way. Take the woman example: I would expect in the article a picture of a nude woman to explain the differences between women and men in this fashion, but the lead does not need this when there's plenty of free images of (clearly identifiable) women we can use. The counter to this would be the fact that there's no real way to avoid the "shock" of naked genitalia on articles about those parts of the body.
Thus, for example, the current Holocaust picture is appropriate, compared to File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg which is used later in the article - still appropriate to use in that article, but not really the best choice of lead image. I know there's discussion as Pregnancy whether a nude pregnant woman can be replaced by a tastefully clothed pregnant woman in the lead image as well (though again, the nude pregnant woman picture would still be completely appropriate in the body of the article). Little things like that and only for the lead image. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A similar situation came up a while back on the talk page of Myiasis: Some folk thought that File:Myiasis-cat.jpg was too disgusting to be the infobox image. (I'm not easily disgusted, so I didn't see the problem, myself.) A different image, File:Miasis human.jpg, was inserted in the infobox, and the former image was retained elsewhere in the article. So far, nearly a year has gone by with no further complaints. Deor (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That pregnancy image well illustrates the problem: it is completely alien to me and my values that the current lead image could be considered offensive, and to much of the world it wouldn't be, even if displayed in a public place. We can't just conform to the least tolerant cultures. There shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether such straightforward (even clinical) images of the human body are top "offensive" to lead articles about the human body and physiology any more than we should humor complaints about leading articles with the unveiled faces of married women. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at some point, we have to use common sense; displays of nudity are generally a problem across most of the civilized world. If the article was about nudists or naturalism, of course a nude picture is completely appropriate. But we're talking pregnancy, and the most common image (through common sense) of that is a woman with a distorted abdomen as she carries her child to full term, regardless of how she is dressed (or lack thereof). In other words, we can still demonstrate pregnancy with an image that we all know by common sense is less a problem as a lead image. In the body of the article - go right ahead and use as many copious images of nude pregnant women to help the reader to understand, by all means, but again, as the lead image is something you can't avoid when you open a page, some discretion should be used. And of course there is a point that if the pictures available to use in the lead are somewhat offensive to all to various degrees, a lead image is not required. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implication that editors can "wiki-lawyer forever" to include offensive images is absurd given that few editors actively try to insert the most offensive image they can find(compared to many who try to censor as much nudity/violence/etc), and because in no part of the policy does it actually "specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter". The current policy states that arguments should be focused on relevance to the article, and since our purpose here is on informing and not on pleasing our general focus should always be on what is informative and not on what the reader likes. Now that does not mean that offensiveness "should carry zero weight within Wikipedia", but that is not what the article says in any form. This proposed wording is attempting to even the scale against a supposed current wording that argues that no weight should be given to arguments on offensiveness, but the current wording does not argue that at all. Furthermore we have guidelines that specifically address the issues you have brought up:
However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
I also disagree with "precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources". Reliable sources are limited often times by their resources(cannot print as many images, especially color) and this argument will end up circulating around subjective arguments like "Source X uses photos of tortured Jews so there is precedent", "No, source X's photo shows Jews tortured by method W, Y and Z, and not method A like in the photo you want, and IMO method A is far more offensive", "I disagree, method A is no more offensive and shocking than the other methods(they're practically identical)", "I disagree, and unless you can find a source specifically illustrating method A then there is no precedent", etc, etc. Do we really want to waste editors time with arguments on how specific a source has to be to set "precedent" and editors scouring the internet looking for ultraspecific examples, etc. If we added this then there would be need to be a whole description of just what "precedent" is and how to assess it, and IMO such a section would never gain consensus and would be totally unnecessary anyways.AerobicFox (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that whether another RS has used the image or not should carry any bearing. This would essentially favor not using CC content created by Wikipedians for Wikipedian articles when its felt necessarily per WP:OI. This includes both photographs and illustrations.∞陣内Jinnai19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that'd put quite the dent in Wikipedia's long and rich history of hentai and lolicon user creations, eh? But yea, the "it should be in a reliable source" argument is an unreasonable burden to place upon image usage. Again, what this comes across as is policy/guideline wording to support the removal of images that someone doesn't like, and the analogy to the Russian wiki situation was weak; the question was not of offensiveness but of relevance and appropriateness to the subject matter. Does the reader need to see a photograph of a naked woman to understand the an encyclopedia entry on women? No. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please not have strawman arguments. No one anywhere has demanded that the same image should have been used in a reliable source. --JN46622:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're already scouring the Internets for precedent each time we want to add a bit of text (we call it sourcing). So we are well in the habit of doing so. 99.999% of the images we use would not demand any such effort. But if there is an image that half or close to half of the community finds grossly insensitive, then it would seem wise, as a tie-breaker, to do a reality check to find out whether use of similar images has any significant prevalence in reliable sources, or indeed whether any reliable source at all has ever used a comparable image. If the answer to that question is "No", then we should remember that our whole effort here is about reflecting the content of reliable sources as accurately and proportionately as possible. We are not here to provide an alternative view to that presented in reliable sources – neither in text, nor in illustrations. --JN46623:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unrealistic to reason that a reliable source is going to serve as a guideline concerning what in the final analysis is a matter of taste. There is really no difference between the photograph of the image of the woman's face and the photograph of the woman's body, as referred to earlier in this thread. We are applying criteria of taste where we should not. Policy is well-worded as it is:
"Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
These are editorial decisions. They are, or should be, specific to the article. Nor do I agree with the notion articulated above that the first image encountered in an article needs to be toned down in its ability to shock some people. Education is sometimes "shocking". I don't think that should be our concern.
Just as in the verbal component of an article, imagery should in fact be incisive. Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space. Clear communication of the ideas germane to the article's topic is all that should matter. Our primary concern should be imagery that does exactly what the verbal component does. That is to educate and explain and provide resources for further exploration of related topics.
A face does not contain sexual content? The photo of the full figure nude contains no more or less sexual content that the photo of just the face. There are no objective measures of level of sexual content—or at least none applicable to the two images linked to. Our concerns are properly confined to the subject of the article. We should be concerned with what images help to illustrate and expand upon the verbal component of the article. We simply cannot be concerned with "offensiveness" beyond a reasonable point. Granted, when an image is gratuitously offensive that can be grounds for an argument for removal. But we have to be careful about that argument being invoked where inapplicable. That is why I would support language as presently in place. The two photos above are equally appropriate (or inappropriate) for the article that they were supposedly for. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop: common sense please. You and I both know that for the vast, vast part of our readership these two images are nowhere near equal in offensiveness. You want to make an abstract argument about the inability to objectively determine sexual content; you're just Bill Clintoning us. 99% of the people in the world have no trouble whatsoever seeing this distinction, and that includes people who like the nude (one can approve of the nude and still recognize that it's a sexualized image). We need better language here because too many people rubber-stamp problematic images with NOTCENSORED. The problem is not (as you put it) that the argument might be invoked where inapplicable, but rather that there are editors who have determined for themselves that there is nowhere where the argument can be invoked. it just leads to long disputes over images that aren't really worth the effort. --Ludwigs200:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, do you think the image on the right would be a suitable lead image for the article man in an encyclopaedia? And if sources covering the topic "man" do not use such an image as their lead or title image, do you think it is in line with WP:DUE / WP:NPOV if Wikipedia is the only exception? --JN46601:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people were capable of taking a broader perspective on this issue. I mean, I think I understand comment's like Bus stop's "Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space" above - it's an effort to keep the encyclopedia free and open - but it's just a fact of human life that the line between being direct and being rude is paper thin. Direct is good, rude is bad; opting for the first makes us respectable, opting for the second makes us not. Good taste matters in almost everyplace in the world, and if the project simply ignores good taste then the project becomes a first-class jerk. We can deal even with even highly offensive topics without becoming offensive ourselves, and that is the attitude we should be fostering across the project.
I like Jayen's revision, but I'd recommend taking the emphasis off of wp:RS (which is just going to open up a can of worms, since images usually don't have clear sourcing like text, and drama-ridden images tend to get wider publication), an aim for something a little less one-sided. something like:
Wikipedia aims to be useful and accessible to the broadest population of readers. Controversial or potentially objectionable content should be assessed according to its appropriateness, relevance, and educational value for that particular article, and material should neither avoid nor aggravate the given controversy or offense without good cause.
Again, common sense please. misogyny is a very strong term. This is inappropriateness, not misogyny. Or would you suggest that it's acceptable for someone to pat some acquaintance on the bum because patting someone on the bum isn't rape? Just because it's not extreme doesn't mean it's ethically correct. --Ludwigs200:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs—maybe you had your libido accidentally in the "off" position when viewing the facial portions of the two photos. There is much more sexual content in the photograph of just the face. The full figure nude seems bored at that moment that the photo was taken. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop: do I really need to ask you to use common sense a third time? Your argument is that a woman with a 'come hither' look on her face is as sexually charged as a full-figure nude. It's an absurd argument that practically everyone in the real world would recognize as absurd the moment they heard it, and the only reason it slips by here with any credibility at all is that you're saying it in the standard 'internet fishbowl' (i.e. the detached, speaker-centered realm where you can say whatever you want and never have to cope with the disbelieving eye-rolls that run across the faces of everyone reading). The first picture is trying to be sexually provocative; the second one is inherently sexually charged. You might want to check what position your libido is in. . --Ludwigs201:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Break
The present wording includes the sentence
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.
That wording encourages editors to dismiss any argument involving offensiveness as irrelevant. By doing so, it sets WP:NOT against guidelines such as
all of which offer editors guidance based on whether content is potentially offensive or not. If we can't discuss whether an image is offensive or not, we can't discuss how these guidelines apply. That sentence needs to go, or be rephrased. --JN46601:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JN466—there is a fundamental problem with speaking of images being offensive or inappropriate. Consensus determines which images are to stay and which images are to go. Policy should not be in place to add a greater degree of indeterminacy to the already complex and subjective process of reaching consensus. "Offensiveness" will never be defined nor should it be defined. This project is open to articles on all topics. Criteria for offensiveness inevitably varies by article. What would be the point to misleading editors into thinking that they can simply invoke prudish proclivities to get images removed? The threshold for removing images should be much more stringent than that. Editors should instead be required to show inapplicability of a given image to a given article. Good taste should not even be on the table as a topic of discussion. To keep the discussion on topic, editors should be discussing how a given image advances or detracts from the purposes of a given article. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we need to look at the wording of this section, so that editors can't argue like you. :) Inapplicability of a potentially offensive image to a given article is demonstrated by a lack of sources using similar images in the same context. Likewise, the relevance of a potentially offensive image is demonstrated by reliable sources using similar images in the same context. Most of the time we know that our pictures are fine, because we consciously or unconsciously remember seeing similar illustrations in reliable sources; the image's presence feels natural and expected. Here we are talking about images that are unexpected. --JN46602:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JN466—the Internet is not organized by images. Except for a few searching tools like TinEye, there is little ability to associate words with images. What we are actually doing is using our own mental resources to bring images into association with words. There are exceptions. But in the example of an article title Woman, which I believe was the article associated with the two images of females discussed above, there can't be a quintessential image associated with that topic, and when we are considering an image of Issac Asimov we are probably not going to find a picture of him in the shower. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I am really perplexed by this logic (which I've seen several editors use, not just BS), and I wish someone would explain it to me in a way I can understand. As far as I can tell, it's like arguing that not only is it allowable to fart in restaurants, one should make a conscious effort to fart in restaurants simply because one can't give in to social pressure of people who don't like the smell. It's a 'zero-tolerance' paradigm for the preferences of others for no obvious reason that I can wrap my head around. Is that a wrong assessment? --Ludwigs202:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs—I don't think we should write into policy guidelines that can't be followed. How can such a Talk page discussion proceed? Editors could write volumes on what they feel is offensive. This is a matter of taste. Subjectivity doesn't need to be written into policy.
A far narrower area for discussion would be the goals and aims of the article. That keeps the discussion on the topic of the article rather than peripheral sensitivities. I am not so much arguing against "good taste" as I am arguing for keeping the discussion relevant. I think discussions of "taste" are a distraction and an endless quagmire. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop: you confuse the emotions of an individual with the standard practices of a group or culture. offending the feelings of an individual is unfortunate, but not a major concern; offending the standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender, (etc) is a major concern. When you include an image which broadly violates the mores of almost every community and which can easily be interpreted as demeaning towards an entire gender, casting it as the offended feelings of individual editors is a gross misrepresentation. Do you understand that? Because if you do not understand that, then everything else you say has to be weighed within the context of that limitation.
You fail to understand the psychology of the situation. When we do things that offend people's standards we need to have a reasonable explanation for why we have to. If we do not have a reasonable explanation for why we are doing it, then we look like dickheads. that makes people angry, makes the project look stupid, and generally causes trouble all around as people try to explain to us what dickheads we are being. Telling them that good taste and offense don't matter, or we should ignore that stuff and focus on content, doesn't do anything except reaffirm that we actually are dickheads. It just exacerbates the problem. The only way out of this tangle is to stop doing things that offend cultural mores except where we have a clear and obvious reason to do so.
The only reason these discussions end up as quagmires is because editors like you get it into your heads that that thing (whatever it is) just has to be done. You don't stop to think whether it actually adds that much to the article, you feel a complete entitlement to place your personal desires ahead of the conventional norms of large sections of the real world - you lose all perspective on the encyclopedia and all orientation to common sense. How are the rest of us supposed to discuss things with someone who believes that only his/her feelings matter? Because you know as well as I do that no one argues strenuously for a borderline controversial image unless they have 'feelings' about it.
I'm all for keeping discussions relevant as well, but good taste is always relevant, and trying to deny it is guaranteed to to send a talk page into a tailspin. so let's not do that. --Ludwigs206:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is so preposterous that it is difficult to take it seriously. But I'll try. When you say "good taste", you mean your taste, right? I say that because it is so entirely obvious that it is impossible to talk generally and consistently about the "standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender". There is, of course, no set of standards that all "groups, nations, cultures, races and genders" embrace; even the slightest effort at reflection results in the insight that there is diversity and conflict in this realm, even for any one of those dimensions of membership/identity. So, in practice when someone says "good taste" they usually mean "my taste", because there isn't anything else for it to mean. No doubt you will reject all of this -- but do you really expect to be taken seriously in that regard? Do you really think you get to speak on behalf of races, genders, cultures, etc.? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ludwigs—"offense" can be an excuse or a pretense for skewing articles in ways not in the interest of the general English-speaking readership. Editors don't need to be armed with language enshrined in policy articulating that we should not "offend". Arguments for and against the inclusion of images should be confined to just that which is relevant to fulfilling the aims of that particular article. If some image, or text, is gratuitously "offensive", it should be possible to also argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article. "Offensiveness" is to varying degrees subjective. We should be concerned with not offending our fellow editors on Talk pages but we should not necessarily devote so much energy as you and others are arguing for to not offending the general readership with relevant information whether in the form of images or text. Every "offensive" image or text already exists on the Internet. Wikipedia should be an oasis of educational content and we should not be subservient to those who claim to be "offended". Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is preposterous here? are you saying that there isn't a taboo against nudity almost everywhere? are you saying that this taboo isn't recognized by practically everyone? There is a clothes-optional resort I go to two or three times a year - it's a marvelous place, but no one there deludes themselves into thinking that the behavior is conventional. Why are you pushing that delusion here? This isn't about my tastes vs your taste (and if it were the discussion would be very different); this is about your personal preferences vs. the mores of every major world culture. You seem to want to deny that culture and society exist and reduce everything to minor squabbles between wikipedia editors, and that is just poor reasoning.
@Bus Stop: I would actually want to agree with you, except that in practice NOTCENSORED is used to make it impossible to "argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article." It's kneejerk: If I say "I don't think this image is the best one for this article and I'd like to replace it with that image" I will instantly get the response "you don't think that image is good because you are offended by it, therefore NOTCENSORED renders your argument invalid." It doesn't matter what I say, I'm always told that I'm trying to remove it because of offense and opposed. This is why the wording of NOTCENSORED needs to be changed, to stop that kind of mindless policy application. --Ludwigs217:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, allow me to explain what I am proposing. From time to time we have content – usually images – in our articles that a significant number of contributors consider insensitive to reader's expectations. These matters usually go to an RfC, or several RfCs, and frequently flip-flop multiple times, with the content removed, then added again, and so forth. The result is interminable disruption. For an example, with an outline of all the myriad discussions had on the matter, see the box at the top of Talk:Goatse.cx. Now calculate the editor hours that went into this – the uploads, deletions, votes for deletion, deletion reviews, mediation, and so forth. We have to find a more efficient way of solving these disputes. What I am proposing is two things:
that concerns about insensitivity in illustration are prima facie taken seriously (this is something the present wording discourages),
that we solve those disagreements the same way we solve all other types of disagreements on content: by recourse to sources.
Reliable sources should be the final arbiter in these cases. For example, I'm not aware of any reliable source that has actually featured the goatse image on its pages while writing about it. If that is so, why should we? Sources give a link to the site for those who wish to see it; so can we. (And we can often provide relevant Commons links as well, where additional and perhaps more explicit media are available.) To give another example, leading to the opposite outcome, Rape of Nanking features a horrific image of a severed head. Editors may argue that it is too horrific to show. However, that image was published by Life Magazine, establishing good precedent in a highly reputable source. Ergo, the image stays. Or an editor may object to a drawing illustrating a sexual position. However, we can show that similar images are used in educational works on sexology, so the image stays. Do you see what I am getting at? Recourse to sources prevents us from straying outside the envelope of what reputable publishers consider useful to present, while safeguarding potentially offensive images that have demonstrable educational justification. Following this approach ensures that our editorial judgment is informed by the judgment of reliable sources, for media as it is for text, where we have long taken for granted that we cannot include ideas and information that are without precedent in reliable sources. It's a cornerstone of our project.
As with disputes about article text, adopting this proposal will not end all arguments – there will always be edge cases where only very few obscure or questionable sources feature the kind of content someone wishes to include – but it will help our discussions be better informed by reference to mainstream standards, and may reduce the amount of time we spend on them. --JN46613:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen, we might have found some common ground. I can see some value in drawing on reliable sources to work out what images to include. However, I'm not sure why we would address that issue here. Perhaps at WP:IUP? The issue motivating your introduction of a discussion here, on WT:NOT was (as I understood it) "offensiveness". I then have to mention what seems to be a contradiction between two recent posts you have made: [21] and [22]. Are you proposing to delete that sentence or not? It seems to me that this is the issue we would discuss here, while the "use reliable sources for images" discussion would belong somewhere else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Nomo, it's the misuse of NOTCENSORED that causes these problems. I was the one who spearheaded that move to get rid of the Goatse image, and I literally spent a month trying to get editors to move past simple repetitions of the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored". And in fact, I never succeeded in that goal: all I managed to do was be sufficiently persistent (RfC's, mediation, and AfD on the image, endless circular talk page discussion) that the squabble attracted sufficient numbers of thoughtful attention to make removing the image feasible. the supporters were parroting NOTCENSORED to the end, and for weeks beyond. and the Goatse image was not a subtle issue: it was an image that never should have been on the article in the first place, but once it was there it required a herculean effort to remove because of editors using NOTCENSORED like pepperspray. Much the same thing has happened on Muhammad, and on Pregnancy, and on… do you see the problem? --Ludwigs217:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs, you either misremember or misrepresent the goatse debate. I was a part of that as well at the time, and the reason it was finally (and IMO wrongly, but I accept that a consensus of editors saw differently. Novel concept, I know.) deleted was because of WP:NFCC concerns. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png for a refresher, the argument delete on the grounds of offensiveness was explicitly rejected in the closing argument. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. He simplified the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem. HansAdler17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I remember how the issue was resolved. I also know that it would never have gotten to that point except that I pushed, and pushed hard. I don't really care if the right thing got done for a spurious reason (God knows the closing admin needed some credible excuse, given the trenchant opposition); what I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments. Simply repeating NOTCENSORED over and over again is a discussion tactic worthy of six year olds, and it's not how we should decide things on project. --Ludwigs218:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue. The only reason the image was deleted was because of WP:NFCC policy, which is arguably one of the most important in the project as it deals with fair use and copyright concerns. That you think the prevailing argument is ridiculous is a point you have belabored to death by now. We get it. We also no longer care. Simply "being offensive", an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
. --Ludwigs2 01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
