*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one
of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except
that you do.*
Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. Would you argue
that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the
external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
against including them? Man could equally argue that their broad
availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
pre-filtering topics and content on a
we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
there is no way to compromise.
*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't
applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim
connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the
"Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of
urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why
the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is
so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
My intention here is to have a friendly, sensible argument that may or may
not reach some form of agreement (Its a mailing list, so consensus cannot
really be formed here). It is natural that one defends his own stance, but
trough friendly conversation at least some compromise should be reachable.
As for the image on "Piss Christ": I would argue that if something sparks
controversy, we should be detailing what the controversy is about. The
inclusion of the image gives the reader an impression as to whether
something was deemed offensive. Also, keep in mind that we are not filtering
content simply because it is deemed offensive - after all, who defines what
is offensive? Offensiveness inherently relies upon a judgment, and judgments
are inherently PoV. As i said again and again - we should thread lightly
with such images, and make sure that they are *only* in article's where a
reader should expect such an illustration. If Muhammed would be on the Islam
page the image should be removed. If Piss-Christ would be on a christianity
article, it should be removed.
As for the image size - i didn't exactly decide it should be that large, but
i agree there is no reason at all to size it up. I believe that it might
origionally have been upsized for layout reasons, so that the "reception"
section would be entirely next to it. Since it is preferable to allow the
selection of thumbnail sizes trough "My preferences" i simply shrunk the
image to its preferred size. But tell me - why didn't you simply do this
yourself when you made that observation? Thumb's are certainly preferable,
so i don't think that changing it would count as controversial.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, <email@example.com> wrote: > Excirial wrote:
> > *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> > images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking
> > all images?*
> > See the FAQ section on
> > Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad>,
> > which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
> > permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing
> > exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is
> > prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
> That only works for people with accounts that have already been
> offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
> that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
> for offense, about zero.
> > *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> > its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> > in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining
> > I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally
> > on it. To quote myself: "See this
> > discussion<
> > though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the
> > talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx>. In essence the
> > image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not
> > determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
> > privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
> > hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
> > more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
> > wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
> What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
> Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
> images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
> suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
> has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
> still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
> found to remove that image.
> > *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
> > of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
> > smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
> > If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you
> > please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that
> > comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
> > between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
> And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
> the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
> feeling. Except that you do.
> > Besides this you
> > might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx
> > so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
> > actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
> The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
> > Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you
> > it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the
> > one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
> > believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up
> > flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm
> > to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
> > dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
> > other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more
> > one's heels in the soil".
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
> display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
> cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
> offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
> are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
> image to illustrate an article?
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list