| Revision as of 22:28, 28 December 2008 editHarej (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,253 editsm moved Misplaced Pages talk:Sexual content to Misplaced Pages talk:Sexual content/old: old discussion for the old page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:22, 5 July 2011 edit undoHarej (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,253 edits merging into Archive 1 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Sexual content/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == the bad image list == | |||
| I've added a bit about this - because on reflection, it's important to explain in this context, and is an interesting thing to look at in terms of current practice - lots of questions about it here, and I'm reading up some of the older discussions (there are heaps) ] (]) 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :can anyone explain simply the significance of the 'MediaWiki' prefix? - Does this mean the page relates to wikipedia's implementation of MediaWiki, or would such a page on other projects sort of automatically work? - I'll sniff around a bit.... ] (]) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. They're common to all MediaWiki installations, and most, if not all of them, are kind of important. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == another page to review == | |||
| * ] | |||
| This one's pretty interesting - covering much related ground, and it's linked to from other policy areas.... ] (]) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Removed this yet again == | |||
| And heading, when I can be bothered, for some sort of request for administrator intervention with ]. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ===Proposal 2 - A sexual content flag=== | |||
| The community could support the creation of a 'sexual content flag' - which allows users to choose whether or not explicit content (perhaps judged loosely by the 'safe for work' bar) will appear. This may be achievable through some implementation of the flagged revisions extension, or require further development. | |||
| If such a flag were technically feasible, then it may further be sensible to develop a policy surrounding the terms of use - for example inviting users to confirm that they are of a certain age, and that certain material is legal in their jurisdiction etc. - this is similar to the approach taken at for example. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| This one man crusade is dead, buried, and over. This is ] and ]. The entire proposal was '''rejected'''. There is a '''consensus against it''' which '''you are ignoring'''. ] over this user. ] (]) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fiddle, I think you may have some misunderstandings about how proposal pages should work, I also think you may have some misunderstandings about the acronyms you're referring me to, and I also think you may have some misunderstandings about the difference between working on a proposal, and having sex with a dead horse ;-) (both on this page above, and elsewhere) - please don't mention that again, it's distasteful. | |||
| :I'll seek some more eyes and ears here too, and once again I'll re-iterate that I'll work with you on developing a framework for non-disruptive editing of this proposal, or I'll disengage and steer clear of you if you wish to be left alone, but I'm afraid I disagree that the only way for me to respect consensus is not to post any new ideas or anything. I intend to put the section above back, and have some small extra bits to add too, at some point. ] (]) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I expect I may be confused. But I also understand consensus. You are not someone that is to be worked with. You say one thing and mean another. I have ceased to assume good faith about you having given you the benefit of the doubt for a very great deal of time. I will, however, work against you in any proposal you make to increase censorship. There is no dialogue that I can have with you that appears to me to have any potential for bearing fruit. Understand that I am not hostile to you, but that I am hostile to what your objectives appear to me to be. I see your edits here to be disruptive and divisive under the pretence of forming a consensus. It also seems to me that you choose not to understand things that you are told by many people. You are flogging a dead horse. It went rotten a substantial time ago. Walk away from it. ] (]) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I feel sorry for these poor horses - please stop referring to rotten flesh etc. Let's take the paragraph above - perhaps you could say what you disagree with, whether you think it's clear etc. Maybe you can come up with another idea - or maybe you just don't want to talk about it at all! All of these are fine - what's not so cool is you saying that because this whole issue is resolved (I disagree) and because consensus is with you (sure) that it's inappropriate to even think about ideas such as the one mentioned above. Here's a little litmus test - if the idea above is disruptive - who is it disrupting? ] (]) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Let's take the paragraph above - perhaps you could say what you disagree with, whether you think it's clear etc." | |||
| :::::I think you should re-read this page. People have made it crystal clear what they disagree with. namely, ''the entire proposal''. | |||
| ::::"Maybe you can come up with another idea" | |||
| :::::We have: ]. I suggest you go read it again. | |||
| ::::"what's not so cool is you saying that because this whole issue is resolved (I disagree)" | |||
| :::::You're wrong. The issue is dead, buried, decomposed, recycled as firelighters, fed to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, shat out, decomposed again, and used as potting soil for the ]. | |||
| ::::"and because consensus is with you" | |||
| :::::I for one have supported application of consensus I disagree with vehemently. I have also bowed gracefully to consensuses I have disagreed with. You need to learn how to do these things. Consensus is not with you and likely never will be. | |||
| ::::"it's inappropriate to even think about ideas such as the one mentioned above" | |||
| :::::It is inappropriate to keep beating the dead horse long after you have been told by a large number of people that you are on a hiding to nothing. It is inappropriate to try and end-run around ] by proposing another. For the last time: if you want to change ], the place to discuss the change is ]. This is not a difficult concept to understand; if I wanted to change the ] policy, the place to do so would be there, not by continually harping on ] after many people have told me that the subject needs to be dropped. //] ] 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Sorry to be late to the party. I echo the concerns that most of the other people here have shared so far; I don't see what this adds to ]; it doesn't add anything except semantics, semantics that we don't need. All we need is a blanket statement saying that we don't censor images and that as long as an image enhances the quality of an article, we keep it. We don't need anything less than we have now, and we certainly don't need anything wrong. It should be pretty clear by now that this is never going to fly. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Privatemusings should certainly be allowed to promote a view that is currently a minority, otherwise consensus can never change. --] (]) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::He was allowed to promote the view, and it was shot down in flames on VP. He then moved here to promote the same view, and was similarly shot down in flames. Similarly perennial proposals at ] have been likewise shot down. He is no longer simply promoting a viewpoint, he is now definitively ignoring consensus to prove a point, using the page as a soapbox, and doing it all in the maddening way that Durova (I think it was Durova) so eloquently encapsulated at PM's RFC/U. An RFC/U, it should be pointed out again, that was started because PM has a long history of refusing to listen when people disagree with him. This is more of the same. To put it another way, here's the discussion to date, in a nutshell: | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Hey guys, I think we need to change our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images, what do you think? | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No. Please see ]. | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Great, now that people are talking about it, what do you think about changing our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images? | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No. Please see ]. | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Okay, but I think it's a good idea, what do you guys think? | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No. Please see ]. | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Alright, I think we need more discussion. | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No we don't, we've already discussed this ''ad infinitum''. Also, please see ]. | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Great, so let's discuss this! | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No, and the equine necrophilia is really getting tiresome. You should really read ]. | |||
| :::::::'''Privatemusings''': Alright, so we should talk about it more. I really think we need to change our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images. What do you think? | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''': No. Please see ]. | |||
| :::::::...lather, rinse, repeat. This is Privatemusings' tack in every dispute that he's championed: he just won't listen. In the Steve Crossin case which spurred the RfC/U, he refused to listen to multiple people on-wiki and off telling him that he needed to stop. He kept on going. Even after, if memory serves me correctly, ''Steve Crossin'' told him to stop, he kept going. PM simply refuses to listen to consensus when it doesn't accord with what he wants. Are these issues worth dusting off from time to time and taking another look, gauging the pulse of the community? Absolutely. Has this issue been sufficiently revisited? Yes. Has the pulse been taken? Yes. Will PM bow to consensus? No. And even more to the point: '''This whole discussion is an end-run around ]. The only appropriate place to be discussing changes to extant policy is at that policy's talkpage.''' //] ] 03:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::I'm listening, roux - but I'm afraid I disagree. I think there's something useful to be worked on here outside of 'WP:CENSOR' - I really do :-) - and please please stop equating my actions with having sex with dead horses! ] (]) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::or to put it in a smarter, clearer way "WP:NOTCENSORED is based on the principle that we don't omit anything from the encyclopedia to protect the readers. This or similar proposals are based on the idea that we might voluntarily choose to omit something to protect outside parties who might be harmed by it." - that's pretty much my perspective too - expect I'd substitute 'omit' with 'form a sensible policy for how to include without causing harm or drama' in this context. :-) (notice the lack of reference to sex with dead horses herein too) ] (]) 03:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Beating a dead horse" means trying to get something to move that won't. As in, one whips a horse to make it go faster, but eventually it will drop dead, and no amount of beating it will make it move again. It has nothing to do with sex, Aussie slang meanings for 'flogging' notwithstanding. 'To flog' means 'to whip or beat'. //] ] 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::That the appropriate place to discuss this proposal is the WP:CENSOR talkpage is an opinion, and not reflective of any policy I'm familiar with. Similarly, there is no policy that constrains the good faith proposal of a policy or of altering it in various ways to see if it garners more support. It probably serves little purpose for privatemusings to continue to propose alternate wording at this point, since the mood of the community seems to be against the very idea - but I don't see how it is disruptive. He is not doing an "end run around consensus" by altering the proposal. Consensus is still that the policy is rejected, and I see no attempts from him to declare otherwise. I'm not sure why his conduct here is so upsetting to Fiddle Faddle and Roux - what's the big deal? Just keep light tabs on the talkpage to see if the discussion begins to involve more people. Without that, you don't have to fear that the page will become policy behind your back. ]] 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's part and parcel of a pattern that PM has been explicitly requested to stop, that the RFC/U on him was about (the specific details of the Steve Crossin thing were red herrings). //] ] 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I don't recall privatemusings being asked to refrain from proposing or editing policies. Can you point me to that? I do remember him being advised to stay out of issues and drama where his involvement can't help and where he doesn't have all the relevant background, but I don't see how that applies here. ]] 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He was asked, if memory serves, to stop championing causes after consensus is clearly against him. //] ] 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Privatemusings, how do bits and pixels cause harm to outside parties? If one assumes for a moment that bits and pixels can cause harm to outside parties, in what way do our extant policies/guidelines/dispute resolution mechanisms et al. fail to address said harm? This (and similar proposals) seems like a solution searching for a problem. ] (]) 03:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As to the overdone horse references - "beating a dead horse" is a common reference to taking something beyond its natural endpoint, whereas "equine necrophilia" (used once by Fiddle Faddle and once by Roux) does indeed refer to having sex with dead horses. Can we let any horse references drop now? Awesome, thanks. ]] 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh, was a bit of humour. Perhaps equine sadism is more accurate. //] ] 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == light-hearted version of why policy is a good idea == | |||
| "some guy jizzing all over himself, taking a picture of it, and uploading it as an "educational" picture just makes us look stupid, in my opinion" - this made me smile - and I thought 'well that's a good example of something that is a) a bit embarrassing and b) effects our ability to work with organisations like schools and c) we need to be extra careful that the photo is properly licensed, and isn't being used without permission, from the copyright holder and the subjects or anything like that. ] (]) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::the only pictures in the last 2 yrs that actually roughly corresponded to that description in quotes above were removed and the editor banned--I think by jimbo personally. My own view is that our approach to sexual content is already very prudish. We have the same few images that we use over and over. I recognize the tendency of some editors to be deliberately as provocative as possible, but i think we already over-react preemptively. Our problem seems to be the very small number of editors able to work with this content in a straightforward way and willing to spend the necessary care on it. ''']''' (]) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::sorry, DGG - but I think that's a bit inaccurate is one very much not safe for work example. There are many more. ] (]) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So what if it's NSFW? We are not the world's babysitters, and people are only likely to see those images if they are looking at sex-related articles anyway. Quite apart from the fact that we are not responsible for what people do with their time at work, if someone is looking up ] while someone else is paying for their time, they have ''got'' to know that imagery or text is guaranteed to show up that is likely to fall afoul of most workplace policies. We don't, for example, remove depictions of Muhammad even though those are not safe for ''anywhere'' in many countries. Please re-read ]. We do not censor images; users are expected to use their own discretion. This proposed policy is explicitly counter to that policy (and, again, should be discussed there), and could only create epic levels of drama when it comes to setting the line of what is and what is not 'sexual' content. For many people, images of women ''period'' are sexual and/or offensive images. Should those be flagged? What about a man in a Speedo or other spandex/lycra-type material, as genitals tend to be clearly outlined? What is the precise amount of thigh we are allowed to show before it becomes 'sexual'? Is a photo documenting a nude beach, including inhabitants, a sexual thing? Nudism is explicitly nonsexual. How about images of cultures where nudity is the norm? Will they be considered 'sexual'? That runs the risk of imposing one culture's norms over others, which is inherently POV. What about photos from major photographers? The only one I can think of offhand is Mapplethorpe, but many photographers take pictures of nudes as exploration of the human form, and not as sexual content. Are you saying that any naked body is definitively sexual? If not, where is the line? Can you not see how setting that line is just an invitation to endless, endless drama? | |||
| :::::Our policy as it stands sets a very simple bar: images are restricted to those which serve to educate and illustrate the article in question. Therefore on an article about ] I would expect to see coats of arms and not the logo of the various newspapers named ''Herald'', and on the article ] I would expect to see photos of breasts and not pieces of a freshly-butchered chicken. | |||
| :::::To put it another way: the bar we set is no bar, so long as images fall within US law (which is why child pornagraphy, for example, is excluded; we ''should'', I will grant, ensure that all nude images are in compliance with US law on nudity with regards to record-keeping of ages of people involved, but I say that ''only'' because our servers are located in the USA and avoiding legal entanglements where reasonable is probably a wise idea, and a disclaimer stating "if you're uploading nude images you hereby affirm that these images are in accordance with US title $whatever and have the records on file if required to produce them); users are responsible for what they choose to view and where. We are not here to act ] to children; it is their parents' job to monitor the child's internet use or not as their personal views on parenting dictate. It is not our job to protect someone from viewing objectionable content when they are on work time; presumably if someone has a job they are a competent adult who can choose to accept consequences for violating workplace policy. | |||
| :::::You have not shown any need for this policy that is not addressed by already-extant Misplaced Pages policies. Which is where this discussion should have been anyway. //] ] 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::we're in danger of agreeing, roux :-) - I'm glad your advocating good record keeping etc. in regard to sexual content. Perhaps you, like me, are concerned that the recording keeping for the image linked to is perhaps a little sub-par, and that it's both right and sensible for us to have a look at that issue? Some of your post above seems to indicate that you feel it's impossible to work out what is sexual content and what isn't (I think other users have expressed this same problem) - I think we can probably figure something out, once we agree that it's sensible to. Further - I wonder if you noticed the proposal to restrict sexual content to article space (as we do with 'non free content')- there seem to be some downsides (creating of 'wiki porn' galleries etc.) and I'm not sure the upsides balance it out... this isn't about censorship at all (I think you're starting to see that?) - it's about good practice. best, ] (]) 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Uh.. no, we're not agreeing. I don't think there's any particular issue with record-keeping, just that ''if'' someone were to launch a legal action, WMF could theoretically get in hot water for not obeying. Then again, there's probably something GFDL-related that indicates that WMF is not responsible for that content, so no issue. As for 'seems to indicate'.. no, it isn't 'seems'; it is ''impossible'' to draw the line as to what is and is not sexual content in a way that doesn't bulldoze various cultural traditions. I notice you didn't actually answer any of the questions. And as for 'sensible'... that is the '''whole point of what everyone is telling you''': it is not sensible, not needed, and by this point the horse has returned as a zombie and starred in a series of straight-to-DVD movies. This categorically ''is'' about censorship: it's about ''your'' determination to wipe out 'sexual content' from alleged people who allegedly don't want to see it, and ''your'' definition of what sexual content is. Answer the questions I posed. //] ] 05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::if I agree that we're not agreeing, will we disappear in a puff of logic? - I most certainly will answer your questions, and I'm glad to be moving forward :-) - I'll probably sort of grab them out, and answer below in due course, if that's cool :-) ] (]) 05:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is not an attack: you have the most bizarre definition of 'moving forward' that I have ever seen. Nothing is 'moving forward' here; that term implies progress. This proposal has been roundly and completely shot down by consensus, and ''nothing'' I have said contradicts that consensus, merely expands upon my contributions to it. 'Moving forward' here would require you stating--as you eventually did with the misguided Steve Crossin thing--that you understand consensus is overwhelmingly against you and that you will drop the issue. The questions are pointing out that there is no way to define what is and is not sexual content in the context of this proposal in any meaningful way. Some cultures would consider a woman in a tshirt and shorts sexual, some cultures consider a woman wearing nothing but a loincloth unsexual. The only way to stake out what is and is not sexual is to prioritise one set of cultural mores above all others. That is completely unacceptable in terms of both NPOV and the concept of an encyclopedia. //] ] 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::I meant that you asking questions, and asking for answers was moving forward really, roux - further your latest posts continues to clarify your position - I'll respond below anon.... ] (]) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::This is precisely the problem. My position--as well as the positions of everyone else who has commented here--was crystal clear from the get-go. //] ] 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::So how would our existing policies et al. fail to deal with that situation? Why do we need a new policy? ] (]) 04:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, if you compare PMusing's comment with the actual policy, there is one complete failure to understand policy there, unrelated to censorship. They have had this one pointed out before, but apparently they wish to change that rule too without actually discussing it on the relevant page. Metaphorical cookie to anyone who spots this :P ] (]) 04:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::you've intrigued me, Lina! - I'm re-reading in detail now..... ] (]) 04:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hint: have a re-read of ], too... ] (]) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ah - well maybe you're talking about the redundancy of my 'model age / release' bit with the 'IUP'? - lemme know... ] (]) 05:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to agree with DGG here; we're already beyond what I would consider a safe point on the censorship vs freedom line, and I don't think it needs to get any worse here than it already is. If anything, we should be looking to expand and improve our content in these areas rather than using the same images over and over again in an almost religious manner as we are now. | |||
| :::As an aside though, I don't think there's anything this proposal adds to existing policy. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 07:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == copied from the mailing list == | |||
| I started a bit of a discussion about this on the au mailing list (in that context, because we're planning some school outreach work, and I'm interested in figuring out what might be sensible to communicate to them) - here's some input; | |||
| But won't there be other forms of content that are liable to be of | |||
| concern to schools? E.g. illicit drugs, contraception, detailed | |||
| descriptions of serial killer crimes, photos of mass graves, etc. There | |||
| are plenty of things that people may get upset about, for a wide variety | |||
| of reasons and beliefs. | |||
| Maybe what's needed is a generalised approach, where you say on a | |||
| picture / article / whatever, that something may be offensive because of | |||
| the following reasons, tick all that apply: | |||
| sexually explicit | |||
| contains swear words | |||
| contains recreational drug use | |||
| contains graphic depiction of dead people | |||
| ... etc | |||
| Then a user could say, either: | |||
| a) I wish to censor _myself_ for the following categories of content. | |||
| b) I wish to censor the following usernames and/or IP addresses for the | |||
| following categories of content, _and_ I am the legal guardian or have a | |||
| legal duty-of-care towards these users, _and_ I represent the | |||
| organisation which is paying in its entirety for this Internet access. | |||
| Then when someone attempt to access some content which violates the | |||
| above restrictions, it puts up a big warning sign, and says "you cannot | |||
| access this content because it contains <type of censored content>, | |||
| which was censored by <you/other person's username>, and this censorship | |||
| was put in place on <date>". That way it's clear what's blocked, and | |||
| why, and by whom. | |||
| Therefore, this allows: | |||
| * People to censor themselves - i.e. censor what they and they alone | |||
| see. | |||
| * Schools to censor content for teachers and/or students. | |||
| * Employers to censor content for employees. | |||
| * Parents can censor content for their children. | |||
| However, neither you, nor the government, nor an ISP, have any right to | |||
| censor what I see on a connection that I pay for, until such time as | |||
| you're willing to foot the bill (in its entirety) for my net connection, | |||
| and are willing to accept a legal duty-of-care (e.g. adopt me / take on | |||
| employment obligations including paying me the minimum wage + | |||
| superannuation / enrol me in a recognised qualification that you run as | |||
| a registered educational site / etc) ... a simple principle, but one | |||
| that Senator Conroy & the UK ISPs & various other nanny-staters might do | |||
| well to consider. | |||
| Sound fair? Hopefully such an approach would balance the needs of | |||
| different groups (such as schools, parents, etc) who may have legitimate | |||
| concerns, against the needs of those who value personal freedoms and | |||
| personal responsibility. | |||
| I'll copy a bit of the above into the 'flag' bit ] (]) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fer cryin' out loud Privatemusings, give it a rest already. ] (]) 02:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::maybe I should have been a bit clearer, lobot - that's not ''my'' input :-) ] (]) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) ''Seriously''. This is now officially forumshopping. You were told no at VP.. so you came here. You've been told no here, so now you're trying it on the AU email list. Where next? //] ] 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::well I'm talking about it on IRC with someone now, roux ;-) not sure if that counts.... ] (]) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oy gevalt. //] ] 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::That was shot down three years ago: see ]. --] (]) 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see some seeds of fantastic work, to be honest.... I'll read around more, and maybe start mining! ] (]) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No! The point is that it was ''shot down''. The same way this was ''shot down'' when you proposed it at VP. The same way this has been ''shot down'' here. The same way that similar perennial proposals have been ''shot down'' every single time they have been proposed. Seriously, what is it going to take to make you understand? //] ] 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::It's not the place of Misplaced Pages to do those kinds of things. If someone wants to censor their kids internet connection because they're afraid of him finding out about weed or what a vagina looks like, fine, but I don't see any reason why we should even condone that, let alone make it easier for others to do. If someone wants to install parental control software, fine, they're going to do it anyway, but we certainly shouldn't be making censorship easy. Also, this has been shot down quite a while ago if I recall. Remember that we have the general disclaimer. You can already 'self-censor', if you're oddball enough that any of those things bother you; its called "don't look at the article". <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This round alone has been shot down conclusively here, and was shot down previously at VP before PM brought it here. A stroll through the archives of ] should show previous incarnations--likewise shot down. PM is simply refusing, as usual, to listen to consensus. //] ] 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::no, roux - I'm communicating ideas which fly wildly against consensus - something this healthy wiki culture can embrace, I'm sure :-) (take solace from the large 'rejected' tag at the top of the proposal page) - @Celarnor - I'm interested in the knock on effects of your position on the ''utility'' of Wikimedia within certain contexts, and I'm also interested that you seem certain there is no nuance possible in this area - what do you think about us at least asking for conformation of model's ages within sexual content, for example? ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"no, roux - I'm communicating ideas which fly wildly against consensus" - which you have been told to stop doing because it's disruptive. //] ] 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::ah, well I'm afraid at that point, I really can't agree, roux.... (hence my guess that the culture here take handle ideas which aren't in line with consensus) - I'm sure you can see the problem if we develop a vibe where only ideas that match consensus can be expressed. I've got a few ideas for how to avoid disruption (and am trying to de-escalate and keep discussing etc. etc.) - and as I mentioned, I'm also well up for working on a framework for non-disruptive work here with you, or anyone.... any ideas? ] (]) 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: ps. if I added 'local' before 'consensus' it would match more closely my intended statement too.... ] (]) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, that isn't what I'm saying, of course ideas that go against consensus can be expressed--that's the point of BRD. There has to come a point, though, at which you realise "I think this might be a good idea" has been completely and soundly rejected by the community. You passed that point some time ago; this type of proposal has been rejected by the community on multiple occasions over the years, and your forumshopping isn't going to change that. In a nutshell: proposing ideas good, recognising when those ideas have been '''completely rejected in their entirety''' is better. This is exactly the same thing you did with Steve Crossin--everyone was telling you the same thing and you refused to listen until an RfC/U eventually got your attention. ''Durova'', one of your staunchest supporters, has told you to stop. When will you get the message? What will it take to make you understand that you're not 'expressing an idea', you're actively being disruptive by refusing to listen to what everyone is telling you? //] ] 04:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::No, I do not see the utility of Misplaced Pages in these situations. I see the utility of a ''fork'' of Misplaced Pages under those conditions, for the utility of institutions/parents who aren't willing to use a Misplaced Pages without censorship. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 06:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| < - heh.. well I added this bit earlier ''Ask uploaders to confirm the age of models in media containing sexual content'' - I wonder if you disagree with that? - and I'm still forming, and working on all sorts of ideas! My reading is that it's fairly normal to do this as part of a proposal page. Now if you're absolutely sure that you're going to also disagree with the ''next'' idea that I'm going to put on the page, then I'm afraid I would probably tend to feel that you may not really be assessing them on their merits - which is a shame. Perhaps we should move this sort of meta-chat over to my talk page? - either ways, I remain open to any ideas you've got for how I can avoid being disruptive which can't be summed up by 'shutting up' ] (]) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It has been made crystal clear to you that this proposal--like the dozens of similar proposals before it--is completely rejected. What will it take to make you understand this, and understand that you are doing the exact same thing you have done so many times before? //] ] 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::do you mind if I move this to my talk in a litle while, roux? - it's sort of 'me' centred discussed really... I absolutely do understand that this proposal is rejected, and though I think it should be adopted, I'm happy to continue working underneath the 'rejected' tag - it's no biggie really. You seem to be advocating a much stronger position which is that the page should no longer be edited? - that's not really how wiki things work, in my view (nor should it be!). If you want to chat about Steve, then we can, and if you want to chat about anything else, we can do that too.. if you're frustrated and annoyed at wasting time here, then feel free to wander off, and come back at your leisure too - there's little danger of a cheeky anti-consensus proposal somehow morphing into policy here (honest!) and I'll once again state that if you have any suggestions for how non-disruptive editing of this proposal would work, then I'm all ears :-) ] (]) 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do mind. I have no interest in discussing Steve or anything else besides this proposal and your refusal to bow to consensus. Since you yourself just said it won't be made into policy, why are you continuing? It has been rejected, rejected, rejected. It will continue to be rejected. All historical proposals along the same lines have been rejected. All future proposals will be rejected. ] is clear and a core value of Misplaced Pages. Give it up already. And yes, I am absolutely advocating that editing on the proposal will stop. It is a waste of everyone's time. The simple fact of continuing to push for something that has already been rejected countless times by consensus is what is disruptive. //] ] 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Roux, to answer your question (''Where next?'') : ]. ] (]) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh FFS. //] ] 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| < came here to drop a note in about the Commons thing, but I see Multi's a step ahead :-) - there's also discussion on the foundation mailing list... ] (]) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| See also mailing list thread. ]] 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:22, 5 July 2011
Redirect to: