| Revision as of 19:24, 1 March 2011 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,375,789 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/February. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:24, 3 March 2011 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,375,789 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/February. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| == "This movie isn't about cream cheese!" - mother in old "Durbingle the Goat Boy" comic strip, regarding Philadelphia == | |||
| That is unfortunate indeed. | |||
| On the one hand, Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and there are instances where sexually explicit text, images, sound, or video may be appropriate per policy and guidelines, and beneficial to the article. And in such instances I think they ''should'' be there... | |||
| On the other hand (I have two free, since I am not a one-handed typist) I think they should be there... at least for adults who want them and knowingly consent that they may be shocked by something, if not for all. Misplaced Pages is a ] encyclopedia in many respects. Sexually explicit content might not be limited to articles where the title subject is something which would necessarily imply anything sexual (and ] certainly gives none whatsoever). If there are reliable sources that established "X in pornography" is a notable subject, etc. per policies and guidelines, where X is something not inherently pornographic or sexual or erotic or anything like, and X may even unfortunately be something popular with populations that disapprove of pornography for religious reasons, or populations that cannot legally be shown pornography, or sexually abused people who may find it traumatic, or other sensitive viewers, I'm not sure what means in accordance with policy and guidelines that Misplaced Pages has of keeping that subject and related images out of article X. Likewise, Misplaced Pages has no means of guaranteeing that ''any'' page regarding ''anything'' might for just a second or for a prolonged period of time have pornography (or hate speech, or whatever) added to it as an act of vandalism. Given that this is the case, it would be seemingly be prudent for Misplaced Pages to more actively consider more ways of largely or entirely preventing vandalism or unwanted (or illegal?) exposure to sexually explicit content from happening. | |||
| At a bare minimum, one would think it would be reasonable for users visiting the site to make a self-attested statement of age and be required to ''turn on'' images, rather than turn them ''off'' (not that either of those address everything, given that age can be lied about, and adult content may appear in text and audio). IMDb and eBay, for example, both do age agreements and require consent to access adult content. Better that Misplaced Pages come up with workable solutions than say in the future the ] requiring all websites with sexually explicit content be placed in the ] domain and that internet service providers be required to always get validation of users' ages, and so on. Not to say that something like that will necessarily happen, though the history of film, TV, and videogames as well as some of the positions taken in debates over things like ] don't make it seem terribly far-fetched, at least to me. But I suspect anything I could possibly think of to address any of these problems has been shot down in the past and is already characterized as notfree, censorship, policycreep, and as a perennial proposal. | |||
| Back on the first hand, Misplaced Pages defines itself as "the 💕 that anyone can edit." ''Anyone.'' If the sexually abused infant child of fundamentalist parents living somewhere where pornography is punishable by death somehow precociously made its way directly to e.g. ], Misplaced Pages freely gives that person the right to view the page and to edit it if they can somehow manage that as well. Or serial-killing necrophiliac zoophiles. Or immoral ]. And we should be "open and welcoming" to them all, perhaps by assuming in good faith that no editor could possibly be these things, or be anything other than a good-tempered, law-abiding adult who knowingly consents to the possibility that they might see or hear anything here at any time. | |||
| Back on the second hand, maybe that's something of a slippery slope straw man or something, although the black letter definition's scope is plainly that unlimited. So perhaps it's an imperfect definition; it might be a little overbroad, possibly? Well, Misplaced Pages is] (odd that's an essay and not a pillar, otherwise WP could freeze all editing and new article creation, but I guess "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit and distribute" encompasses it). So, anyone might want to consider editing the definition sometime. But only if there can be said to be a consensus. Arglebargle. ] (]) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I have long argued that Misplaced Pages should have a system similar to Google and Flickr, requiring an age-related (Flickr) opt-in to see adult content. The (3 parts) came to similar conclusions; current status is . If that were implemented, that would be half the problem solved. My view on the Bukkake article specifically is: one of the drawings is okay (and I'll work on that graphic so we can swap them again), but two was too much. As for ], I dunno. | |||
| *Basically, my thoughts on the matter of appropriate illustration are summarised here: (this is the only section of the essay I wrote; for the rest, the essay is perhaps just slightly conservative than I would be, although I will defend the author's right to express this point of view) and ]. | |||
| *The only policy means concerning "X in pornography" sections I can think of is ] (also see ]). | |||
| *The other thing is, all the pornography articles have very high viewing figures. It's important to get the text right. Let's do some more work on the Bukkake article; the Moore chapters look promising. Cheers, --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::A problem with proposing with requiring an age-related opt-in to see adult content is that adult content can appear in text, audio, images or video on any page at any time (except presumably for the small percentage that have no edit tabs, like the disclaimer pages). ] does a poor job of explaining this, I think, and isn't all that prominent a page on the site. Yes, " in relevant areas throughout the site, you will find possibly distressing content and pictures showing subjects like sexual activity or profanity in context" contains some things that are true, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Such content may appear in irrelevant areas (including the page with this claim!), and it may or may not be in context in either of those kinds of areas. It acknowledges the appearance in irrelevant areas to a degree: "Pages which are normally appropriate for children to use may be vandalized with rude words or content which may be offensive." The words might be more than rude though, and the problem with text is not limited to individual words, but may be offensive clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or entire articles. "Content" does encompass all that, and the images, audio and video, but it doesn't fully spell that out in a candid instructive way. "Vandalism is normally noticed and removed within a few minutes, if not seconds (via the recent changes function); but sometimes it can remain unnoticed for days, and even if not, someone will have to see it before it can be removed, and this could be anyone." Misplaced Pages's source for vandalism statistics and reversions for every single page is what, exactly? It is known that vandalism can remain unnoticed for months or years too, but it doesn't admit that. There is at least a disclaimer link on the home page, not that it's very prominent. | |||
| ::If I randomly cut together each scene of every movie that had ever been made, and started projecting it, I could say only parts of it have XXX content, and that the XXX content is a small percentage of the whole film, but I couldn't say when the XXX scenes might appear, nor could I admit minors. I could put disclaimers somewhere people might see it, if they came in a certain way. But then still admitting everybody knowing that some of them are children and some of them haven't read the disclaimers isn't particularly responsible. Having an age-related opt-in for adult content would only serve a purpose if it were required for the whole site. | |||
| ::The essay ASTONISH doesn't really address all the significant ways a viewer might be shocked. Misplaced Pages may have articles or sections of articles on things a person never would have expected an encyclopedia would. The explicit content is not addressed on Misplaced Pages's home page. Search autocompletion gives page titles but not descriptions or ratings. A person looking up something the meaning of which they don't know may find something radically different than their expectations. Someone following a link in from somewhere else wouldn't see a warning on the home page even if there was one. Listing all the significant ways probably might go on for some time and might be impractical. One can summarize some things by saying that vandalism means a viewer can be misguided, shocked, surprised, overwhelmingly confused, deeply offended, or traumatized by any page at any moment. Unrestricted editing means the constant possibility of astonishment. ] (]) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 21 February 2011 == | == ''The Signpost'': 21 February 2011 == | ||
Revision as of 01:24, 3 March 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnstars |
File:Animalibrí.gif
Real-life work-pressure: 10
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Ruby-gateYou recently participated in a straw poll regarding the above article. New options have been crafted at Talk:Ruby-gate#New options, and your input is welcome. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) a special Wikicookies for Jayen466. Bravo. For your very good correction in page of Pauline Bebe. Continue your good work in Misplaced Pages. Pass a good week chérie, Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
SPKI've reverted your editions to the lead despite of your grammar and style could be better than mine. Nothing against you nor against your efforts (thanks!), but I found some inaccuarcies in your edition, that I will discuss here before changing the lead. ¿Ok? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So, fixing my blunders (thanks for pointing them out!), would this be okay as a lead? The Socialist Patients' Collective (in German ''Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, or SPK) was a patients' collective founded in Heidelberg in February 1970, by Wolfgang Huber, a doctor at the Heidelberg Psychiatric Clinic; it emerged from the Patients' Front which had existed since 1965. The SPK considered mental and physical illness to be caused by the capitalist system, and viewed it as an appropriate response to such a system; and it saw doctors as the system's ruling class. Its declared aim was, and remains, to "turn illness into a weapon", a vision that attracted support from intellectuals and anti-psychiatrists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. Under pressure from German law enforcement over alleged terrorist links, the SPK declared its self-dissolution in July 1971, "as a strategic withdrawal"; Huber and his wife were arrested and jailed. Since then, the SPK has continued its activities as the Patients' Front, today the PF/SPK(H). --JN466 17:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- ^ Zbigniew Kotowicz (2 April 1997). R.D. Laing and the paths of anti-psychiatry. Routledge. pp. 80–81. ISBN 9780415116107. Retrieved 1 March 2011.
- ^ Ian Parker (1995). Deconstructing psychopathology. Sage. p. 120. ISBN 9780803974814. Retrieved 1 March 2011.