Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 19 March 2005

Talk archive

Picture of the day The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1 Archive – More featured pictures...

The image at clitoris

Thanks for your message. You are more or less right about Jimbo's action at autofellatio, I think, but he was quite clear that he didn't approve of the image and thought it should be removed until there was a compromise. I've asked for the same, Timbo. We could link the image until the problem is resolved.

I don't agree that the minority must concede, Timbo. I think NPOV means, clearly, that all views must be included, not that the majority must prevail. We have been over this enough times. You haven't yet convinced me that "consensus" means "the majority wins" and I'm not at all convinced that was the intention of Misplaced Pages, nor do I want to see that principle prevail. I believe fiercely in inclusivity in this project. I do not agree that polls are a good means to create a consensus. Quite the opposite. They destroy any attempt to find one. The polls confirmed that there is a majority for keeping the image, Timbo, but you ought not to ignore that they also showed that there is some dissent. You would be kidding yourself if you did not think there was.

From my POV, I don't see the big deal in linking the image. You can still view it if you wish to, but those that do not know that there will be images that are illegal in many places and, at the very least, considered objectionable in others, will not be upset. Why is it such a bad thing that we should show some concern not to upset readers? It doesn't mean we agree with them. I have been quite clear, Timbo, that I am not a prude, am not offended by the images in question and do not have any desire to have a censored Misplaced Pages. But the hardliners have opposed all means even to allow the page to be displayed without the picture, any warning and any way to prevent upset. It seems to me that they are determined to push their POV and feel justified because they have a majority.

But look, Timbo, a majority of people on this planet believe there is a God of some kind. Would we want our page on God to suggest that it's a fact there is one? Misplaced Pages does not simply reflect the majority, white, liberal view. I'm proud that it doesn't. I will continue to argue that it shouldn't. Dr Zen 08:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I am proactive, Timbo. I am talking to you. I am willing to discuss the whole issue. The edits keep the issue alive. They're no big deal to revert. I don't insult anyone.

But I will not be running any polls. I know who has the majority. But I also know that there is dissent. Dr Zen 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, compromise isn't possible with those who will not compromise and consensus is impossible with those who don't want it. It's fruitless talking with you, Timbo, because you are so convinced of your rightness and so aware that you have the numbers (here) that you will not consider that there even are other views you should accommodate. Dr Zen 21:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for polls, a quarter voted for a disclaimer. That's a lot of dissent. the link vote was for a link to a different diagram not to the photo, but even so, 13% voted against that. Not comparable. The next attempt at a poll collapsed because the hardliners could not find a wording that worked for them. Others have expressed dissent elsewhere. A lot of the dissent has been very fierce. I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored.

We went a long way to creating consensus on a images on/off fork but that collapsed, largely because Tony Sidaway refused to allow a warning, which would render the fork useless, of course. This was a considerable compromise on both sides and is still worth exploring.

We discussed the link and had a quasi poll about that. There was nothing like accord on the issue. The discussion broke down because a hardliner called those who want to accommodate all our readers the "jack ass faction".

I'll quote myself, Timbo: "The point of Misplaced Pages is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Misplaced Pages." This is the point you and I need to discuss. You need to convince me that either Misplaced Pages's majority should not take care of its minority, or that the minority is sufficiently insignificant that it need not be considered.Dr Zen 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am taking your point, Timbo. I'm glad that you at least, despite your firm stand, believe that compromise is not impossible. I am not "edit warring" on my own though. It takes two sides to make a war. We had a compromise solution that most of the people discussing the page were happy to have in place temporarily, but people who were not involved in discussions opposed it. I guess I feel that the "war" began there.

It is going to be the case on Misplaced Pages that if there are two sides that are implacably opposed on any issue, and they will not enter negotiations in good faith, they will each be left with a course of editing the article to make it better by their own lights, and that will inevitably mean an edit war. You know that I feel that suggesting that the article is "stable" if no one edit wars over it is not particularly good faith. The opposition has not gone away just because it is not editing the page! Of course, it doesn't progress the discussion to remove the image. I'm not stupid. But if the "other side" will not discuss a compromise, because they form a majority -- something I simply do not think is within the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even if it has become more and more the de facto means of operation here -- what is left to a dissenter? The other parties in the edit war, Timbo, I should remind you, have not even been involved in the discussions, or when they have, have shown no willingness at all to consider compromise. There can only be a dialogue when both sides are talking! Otherwise, yes, it's just the same old stuff over and over.

I do believe a compromise should be possible. Personally, I feel linking the image should be explored, or having the option to turn the images off as Cool Hand Luke suggested. I think the opposition to this is particularly unfounded. We all agreed that the default would be images on (although of course they would need to be visible only on scrolling down). We differed over the wording but I don't think that was irresolvable. I know some implacably opposed any compromise, Timbo, but surely, if those who are willing find one, and then put it on the page, those who are not are exposed as POV pushers?

As far as placement in the article is concerned, this can only really be a solution if it is indicated that there is a picture! I think a link does this best of all. The picture is there. It is available to be seen. But it doesn't confront children or those offended by that kind of thing.

The discussion about whether children should be confronted by this kind of thing, which many of the opponents of compromise reiterate, is not actually germane to our discussion. Yes, I agree that it's a bad thing that some people think vulvas are offensive, but the point is that they do. NPOV says include all views. That means include all views including the ones you don't personally agree with. I've mentioned enough times that my personal view is that there is nothing wrong with the picture.

What would be useful, Timbo, would be for you to address first of all the issue of whether you are genuinely prepared to include the other views to your own? I firmly believe you are. I do not believe some of the others are at all, but you at least seem willing to try to find a way.

Next, it would be useful to discuss alternatives in terms of how they include all views and not how the majority might make concessions. This has been the problem in discussing this, I think. People say "linking is censorship and I'm against censorship" and I say "no, it's not censorship because, look, the picture is still there, it's simply caring for the sensitivities, however misguided, of some of our readers". We should be looking at how those views are reconciled (I think they can be) rather than how they can be more firmly entrenched.

Finally, anyone trying to find a compromise has to shit or get off the pot. You have to be able to say, there is no compromise possible (I think this is very rarely the case in Misplaced Pages because disputes are usually over expressions of views and there is usually a middle course that nods to both), or that this is a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, we'll make it, and then allow the hardliners to stand outside of, if not a consensus, then at least a compromise that has involved considered discussion. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Again

Hi again Tim, I really do think that picture is a pornographic, I will admit on the clitoris article I was over-reacting but I don't feel that way in this case.--198 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise that you do not feel that linking is possible because you think it conveys a negative message. I tend to agree with Samboy, who suggested that the message it conveys is quite neutral: "We know some are offended." and not negative: "We think vulvas can be offensive."

In any case, I am suggesting that we do legitimate that POV. Suggesting that it should not be recognised is exactly what I feel makes you a hardliner! We ought to try to include all POVs, not simply the one we personally endorse.

Recognition of the value of the other POV in no way endorses it. By saying, yes, we know some people feel this way, we in no way agree that they are right to. This is exactly my position. I feel the POV that I am wanting included is entirely unhealthy and close to unacceptable.

But I would want holocaust denial included in an article on the holocaust, Timbo, even though I find it totally unacceptable, because I believe that the principle of NPOV is what sets us apart (and I'm going to return to it when I discuss what is "encyclopaedic").

As for inclusion/disinclusion, I do see your point that you feel linking out of the page is not including the image. I don't agree, because the material is there and is available to readers, but I understand the POV. I thought that the page fork would be the best solution to that problem. I really can't understand the objections to it as anything other than "we get our way and you can just fuck off", although I do understand the concerns over how to word a link.

But Timbo, this is why I say the first point that must be passed is an agreement that the views contrary to yours should be recognised. If we can agree that we should be inclusive then we are discussing how on each point, not whether. This is where the heatedness has come from, I think, on the talkpage. The anti-imagists, if you like, are frustrated because they don't feel the pros are willing to even begin to compromise and have taken the attitude that anything they give is a (grudging) concession. This is very much fuelled by comments like "the article is stable, why should be bother talking about it?". Well, the issue was not actually resolved and didn't go away! But once we've agreed we want to include all, how is easier.

On the question of encyclopaedic merit, Timbo, I think you have simply abstracted the dispute. Those who oppose the image don't think it has "encyclopaedic merit" because they do not believe it should be in an encyclopaedia. You want to define "encyclopaedic" entirely functionally, and I understand that desire, but it ignores other ways of defining "encyclopaedic" (the exact same problem happens in VfD, where those who want to trim Misplaced Pages claim that what they want cut is not "encyclopaedic" because their definition of "encyclopaedia" is not "contains all knowledge" but "contains what I think an encyclopaedia should contain"). IOW, Timbo, I don't see the point of bickering over what encyclopaedias should or shouldn't contain as a route to resolving the issue.

What I do think is that a roadmap that looks like this is a way forward:

1/ Are you willing to recognise views you do not yourself hold and try to include them? Do you agree that this is in fact what NPOV means in a broader sense? 2/ If yes, are you willing to explore ways to make this happen in regards to this page? (IOW, are you willing to compromise because you accept point one, not because you feel the other side has any particular merit? Once I had asked myself this question, I realised I could not dogmatically support a photo and claim to be supporting the NPOV policy at the same time.) 3/ What ways are open? I suggest the possibilities are: a link, a fork, a small picture at the bottom of the article with a strongly worded disclaimer. You may have others in mind, and they could be put on the table. 4/ What are the objections of each side to each way of resolving the POVs? 5/ Can the objections be answered reasonably in the spirit of trying to find a compromise? 6/ Voila!

As it happens, I feel that at least a group of editors were discussing ways (without having accepted that they should compromise), and that came to nothing. I think it came to nothing because of a lack of commitment from both sides to pass the first couple of hurdles.

Just to discuss for a moment your point about spiders, Tim. If this were Britannica, we would not be having this discussion. There would be no clitoris pic and the spider pic would be there. But this isn't. It's not a regular encyclopaedia.

I think that if we can reasonably assume that a picture of a spider will offend or upset readers, we should link it too. What is lost by it? The picture is still there but now arachnophobes need not fear the article! Everyone is included.

When you say the pictures add to the article, well, they add for some but not for others. They don't add anything for you. They wouldn't add anything for my friend S, who cannot look at pictures of, well snakes actually, not spiders without feeling physically ill.

And yes, here is where the misunderstanding is, precisely. Your POV is that the spider photos don't need taking down on your account. But Misplaced Pages is about all accounts and what is right for all. No? Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You made a very interesting point. I think an equally strong one would be to say "what if someone said the word 'Jew' was objectionable?"

I think that if we are going to pursue that line of discussion, I should say that I think the objector can be asked to cite their sources, just as they can for any other issue. Is "Jew" objectionable to many? Can he/she show many objecting? You see my point. I don't think there is any real case that the view we're discussing is not held legitimately by many of our readers, and some of our editors.

It is very difficult, though, because we wouldn't want to be in the business of saying "this view is legitimate, this one not". NPOV does not allow that. It's not about judgment, is it?

That's why I say point one on any roadmap has to be "should the views in question be recognised?" If the view is that the clitoris picture should entirely be excluded, we have a problem that is very difficult to resolve. We might agree that both views are legitimate, and that one has the advantage of being held by the majority of editors (although I doubt it is held by the majority of the intended audience, which, if I quote Jimbo correctly, is the whole world) and yet, if neither will compromise, one view must be ignored.

In the case of the white supremacists, you need to return to the principle. Should they be offended and upset because of the views they hold? (Well yes, at every turn they should, but you take my point here.) If the answer is yes, what ground is there? If we are reduced to saying, because I don't like their view, we're really working in a POV way.

I'll await your further response, when you've slept on it ;-) before saying anything else.

What does interest me, though, is whether you feel that your objection to a link would necessarily hold against a fork? Dr Zen 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IFD

I listed Image:Autofellatio.jpg on IFD because I feel it's Un-Encyclopedic...I'll be honest I threw up when I saw that dis-tasteful picture. I hope could though we possibly compromise.--198 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... were you drunk when you wrote this? I hope could though we possibly compromise too, and we did. Check out the voluminous discussion and polls at Talk:Autofellatio. I'll be honest I don't believe you threw up when you saw that picture. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the image is orphaned now, and only used for vandalism (see ). Since the image failed VfD, I have reduced its size now to reduce its usability for vandalism, c.f. its talk page. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being trolled

You can tell whether you are being trolled. Ask yourself whether I am showing you a genuine commitment to include your views, whether I am responding to your positivity. Yes, comments were heated on the clitoris page. Raul and Snowspinner are only interested in pushing their POV by whatever means. I can't respond positively to that. If anyone deserves censure, it's those who have taken that attitude. You could simply say "I am backed by the majority" but you haven't. You declare a shared interest in at least trying to satisfy all views. That's something that I can respond to positively. Dr Zen 04:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I know Raul654 is a great editor, and I think Snowspinner is a solid guy too. Perhaps they're guilty of not coming to your talk page and holding your hand and coercing you to make your point for yourself. Reverting once a day is not keeping the discussion going, it's saying I'm going to annoy everyone until I'm satisfied. That's disruptive. You did this because you kept saying the same things and you weren't convincing anybody. Frankly, I don't blame Raul654 or Snowspinner for reacting the way they did. I've been exceedingly civil in our communiques and we've gotten to the point of discussing compromises. If you had been talking compromises all along nobody would be bringing you to arbcom. So great, and I'd like to continue it. It belongs at Talk:Clitoris for the entire community to participate in. That's not the case with arbcom – that's about your actions and whether or not they deserve arbcom intervention. I advise you to take it seriously, because if you don't stick up for yourself in a calm/reasonable/normal manner, you could get banned. They aren't a kangaroo court or a court of any kind. They exist to keep wikipedia running smoothly, and they have the power to do it as they see fit. If they feel your sense of NPOV is illegitimate and disruptive, which I think I, Raul, Snowspinner, Theresa, etc. feel, then you could be in trouble if you maintain that you won't change your mind. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template in sig

You have a template in your sig to a page in your userspace. I didn't want to do it that way when I was customizing my sig 'cause if someone vandalized it, the results would be very widespread. What are your thoughts on the issue? Are you worried about the possible vandalism? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 01:38 Z

Meh I'm not too worried ... maybe I should be, though. :/ TIMBO (T A L K) 05:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a strain on the servers; see ] near the bottom. r3m0t 15:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio.jpg

Restoring the image... I don't know how. I tried, and the Commons image just showed up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the only way to verify the copyright is to ask the original uploader to upload a picture of himself, dressed, with a handwritten sign that says something like, "Hi Misplaced Pages! I hereby release the Autofellatio image under the GFDL." -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

so how do you argue this is not a copyvio? No, you don't need an image of the bloke holding a sign. You need written permission to use it with attribution from the porn site in questin. Have you even emailed them and asked if it was their picture? Ask them if it is theirs, and if so, if we may use it, and if not, why do they serve it, and who owns it. Anything less than that is not due diligence.dab (ᛏ) 08:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dab, parhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying case closed about the copyvio discussion, but I was saying that the issues raised are no more urgent than ones already raised. Thus deleting it until we find out it's not a copyvio seems quite absurd. As I believe AllyUnion may have been alluding to, proving its GFDL status may be incredibly hard ... for example, if we can't get in touch with the webmasters of the other sites.

The picture is not the same. Perhaps it's telling that this different, but similar, image has been found on multiple sites, yet our image has not been. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the creator of these images sold one to porn sites and released one (the more clinical of the two IMHO, since he's not looking at the camera) under GFDL for wikipedia.

In any case, this is not news. Last time Tony Sidaway emailed the webmaster of the site inqiring about the copyright status of the picture and whether they claimed the rights to ours. I left a note on Tony's talk page inquiring about that and asking him to weigh in on the discussion at WP:CP.

So your insistence on due diligence is correct, and the image obviously should be deleted if it's a copyvio, but I do not believe I was wrong in uploading the picture again. There are plenty of images on wikipedia with similarly nebulous copyright status'. In lieu of your raving objections to the image on other grounds, I am disappointed that you took it upon yourself to delete the image and be done with it – and I do not mean to be meanspirited, but your comments were a bit unsettling: "it seems the case will now be decided on a technicality, copyvio." ... "I'm glad if that rids us of the image..."

Thus I'm going to reupload the image while continuing the inquiry into its copyright status. I ask that, because of your involvement, you have another admin delete it (if it is ever found out to be a copyvio) as a show of good faith. I hope we can work this out to the betterment of wikipedia.

Best, TIMBO (T A L K) 18:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my statement. According to the user who uploaded it, it stated that the picture was of himself and that he was releasing it under the GFDL. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

this was a lie. ok, so I claim it is actually my cousin on the image, and hge tyells me he never released it under any licence. so there, now you have two conflicting, equally credible statements. dab (ᛏ)

ok Timbo, I'm certainly not going to abuse admin powers over this, and I deleted it once, but I'll not engage in a deletion war, of course, that would be pointless. It is very obvious that this image is one of a series of porn images hosted on one of these gay porn sites that have the same actor on their entry page. Of course you don't find the exact image, because they want you to pay to look at it. The original uploader photoshopped a crappy black background into the image, possibly because the original was watermarked. I don't know we have any other images of dubious copyright status that are so obviously of a commercial nature, and so obviously uploaded in bad faith. If we do, they should be deleted. I agree the copyvio issue needs to be treated separately from the content issues. I'm making no secret that I want the image gone, but my rationale for deleting it were based on copyvio alone. On the content side, i.e. assuming we won't delete it for copyvio, I expect people who consider the image "encyclopedic" to address the concerns I bring up on the talk page honestly, beyond a show of naivete pretending that it's just like any other old image on Misplaced Pages, and show prepared to find a compromise. The image need not remain in the exact state in which it was uploaded, size reduction and/or grayscale are possibilities for compromise open to us. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as the content issues, your compromise suggestions don't sound too terrible. I don't really see the point in size reduction because the image can be resized anyway. I guess I wouldn't stand in your way, though :) Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 08:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Limeheadnyc/Footer Purge cache