Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images

 

 

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jayen466 at yahoo

Jun 10, 2010, 9:02 AM

Post #1 of 4 (822 views)
Permalink
Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images

There is currently a discussion at the en:WP content noticeboard whether we could or should

1. Use collapsed galleries for particularly graphic sexual images (requiring the reader to click "Show" to see the content)

2. Display them openly, as has been normal practice so far

3. Dispense with images and just add a link to a relevant Commons category.

I've come across examples of collapsed images in other language versions of Wikipedia recently, and it seems to me that is an option we could pursue in en:WP as well, in cases where the content is particularly graphic. If you have views on this, please contribute to the discussion.[1]

On a related point, I've seen people argue recently that we shouldn't be applying a double standard of explicitness to sexually explicit images and images of explicit violence, such as those displayed in the en:WP article on the My Lai massacre.[2]

The gist of the argument is that it reflects badly on us if we are fine with images of explicit violence but somehow cannot stand the sight of explicit images of sexuality, which is after all a normal and essential part of human existence.

I see some merit in that argument, as far as it goes, but it seems to me it misses a key difference in the social functions of images of sexuality vs. those of images of violence.

Images of violence like the ones in the My Lai article document human suffering. Such images have historically been shown to be key factors in mobilising public opinion and political action to reduce or end such suffering. There is a genuine, vital public interest at stake.

Sexually explicit images on the other hand, like those included in our en:WP articles on cock and ball torture[3] or hogtie bondage[4], illustrate practices that individuals engage in of their own free will, in their private leisure time.

So while both types of images are explicit (and I wouldn't completely rule out collapsing a particularly gruesome war image), I think the two cases, and the purposes explicitness serves in each case, have far more to set them apart than they have in common.

Andreas

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Cock_and_ball_torture_.28NSFW.29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


wp.excirial at gmail

Jun 10, 2010, 9:54 AM

Post #2 of 4 (798 views)
Permalink
Re: Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images [In reply to]

This has been discussed many times on many occasions. See the extensive
archives of depictions of
muhammed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad>and
the long discussion regarding the images on the
goatse.sx<hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png>page.
In general the current consensus seems to be against collapsing
image's by default.

Also, these arguments that seem to be used often in this type of discussion:

*Against collapsing:
*1) Wikipedia is not censored. This means that one should expect explicit
images if man navigates to an explicit topic.
2) Not all browsers handle collapsed images correctly, meaning that they may
show regardless, or that they could not be un-collapsed. (Not sure if this
one still applies)
3) Collapsing would be an indication that we deem some content graphic. In
this case we cast a judgment on content, which might lead to a particular
bias. Often this type of argument points out that images of muhammed are not
considered offensive in most parts of the western world, while they are
considered to be offensive elsewhere. Or, to paraphrase a comment i once
read: "If you suffer from
Coulrophobia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_clowns>,
would that mean that our article on it should not contain a related image as
it would be offensive to you?",
4) "Freedom of speech"

*In favor of collapsing:
*1) Explicit content could be hidden on default, which would make a page
readable if man would find graphical content offensive, while allowing
images to be viewed if man wishes to see it.
2) Except for blocking images in a browser, there is no method to filter
possibly explicit content, meaning that a collapse box could be a safety
net.
3) "It is offensive"

As far as i am aware we do not differentiate between different categories of
explicit, due to the danger of casting biased judgments. In general the
inclusion criteria is that the image must be related to the article, and
that it has added value. And of course the image has to be legal within the
USA as well. Do note that this is an incomplete list, and as a disclaimer i
would add that i tend to be against collapsing. I tried to be as objective
as possible while creating this list, but it could possibly be biased
nonetheless, so take care before assuming this is everything ever said about
the topic.

~Excirial


*
*
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> wrote:

> There is currently a discussion at the en:WP content noticeboard whether we
> could or should
>
> 1. Use collapsed galleries for particularly graphic sexual images
> (requiring the reader to click "Show" to see the content)
>
> 2. Display them openly, as has been normal practice so far
>
> 3. Dispense with images and just add a link to a relevant Commons category.
>
> I've come across examples of collapsed images in other language versions of
> Wikipedia recently, and it seems to me that is an option we could pursue in
> en:WP as well, in cases where the content is particularly graphic. If you
> have views on this, please contribute to the discussion.[1]
>
> On a related point, I've seen people argue recently that we shouldn't be
> applying a double standard of explicitness to sexually explicit images and
> images of explicit violence, such as those displayed in the en:WP article on
> the My Lai massacre.[2]
>
> The gist of the argument is that it reflects badly on us if we are fine
> with images of explicit violence but somehow cannot stand the sight of
> explicit images of sexuality, which is after all a normal and essential part
> of human existence.
>
> I see some merit in that argument, as far as it goes, but it seems to me it
> misses a key difference in the social functions of images of sexuality vs.
> those of images of violence.
>
> Images of violence like the ones in the My Lai article document human
> suffering. Such images have historically been shown to be key factors in
> mobilising public opinion and political action to reduce or end such
> suffering. There is a genuine, vital public interest at stake.
>
> Sexually explicit images on the other hand, like those included in our
> en:WP articles on cock and ball torture[3] or hogtie bondage[4], illustrate
> practices that individuals engage in of their own free will, in their
> private leisure time.
>
> So while both types of images are explicit (and I wouldn't completely rule
> out collapsing a particularly gruesome war image), I think the two cases,
> and the purposes explicitness serves in each case, have far more to set them
> apart than they have in common.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Cock_and_ball_torture_.28NSFW.29
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_%28sexual_practice%29>
> [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Jun 10, 2010, 2:30 PM

Post #3 of 4 (797 views)
Permalink
Re: Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images [In reply to]

On 10 June 2010 17:54, Excirial <wp.excirial [at] gmail> wrote:

> This has been discussed many times on many occasions.


It comes up every year or two, in accordance with the typical 18-24
month cycle of Wikipedia contribution. The discussion is pretty much
the same every time.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at yahoo

Jun 10, 2010, 6:22 PM

Post #4 of 4 (792 views)
Permalink
Re: Collapsed galleries for particularly explicit images [In reply to]

Call me an optimist -- I retain the hope that such discussions may not remain circular forever, but eventually might come to resemble a spiral, with some upwards movement, as has happened in other areas like BLP.

In discussions around these issues, it is easy for people on both sides of the argument to get very defensive. And some arguments appear to be based on the belief that [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] states, as a fundamental WP policy, "We shall never do anything that lessens offence caused to others."

[[WP:NOTCENSORED]] does not actually say that, nor would most of us live our private lives that way.

[[WP:NOTCENSORED]] says that we will not remove content just because it is objectionable. It does not say that we cannot exercise editorial judgment in how we present that content, or that we must always choose the way which has maximum shock value, or causes maximum offence.

A.

--- On Thu, 10/6/10, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed many times on many occasions.
>
> It comes up every year or two, in accordance with the
> typical 18-24
> month cycle of Wikipedia contribution. The discussion is
> pretty much
> the same every time.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.