| Revision as of 05:21, 23 October 2011 view sourceRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators28,285 edits Undid revision 456924271 by (talk) - per discussion on his talk page. Removed without prejudice to a future request.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 24 October 2011 view source Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →Requests for arbitration: adding requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <br clear="all"/> | <br clear="all"/> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | ||
| == Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| I am not citing particular parties to this case, as it is more a matter of deep community disagreement than specific behavioral problems. I will leave general notifications on the two articles referred to in this request - ] and ] - and notify those who posted the diffs I use for examples so that they are aware they have been mentioned. | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| ''pending'' | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| *] a recent RfC at talk:Pregnancy, originally closed as consensus to move (and possibly remove) the image, but gradually reworked so that the image is now back as lead image. | |||
| *] second RfC ongoing, due to the problematic handling of the first, although with much talk about closing it on procedural grounds. | |||
| *] current discussion on talk:Muhammad/Images, leading up to an RfC that has yet to be opened. However, the page has 15 archives of the same material and stiff opposition to any current change, so the RfC is unlikely to reach any clear consensus. | |||
| *] an abbreviated policy RfC I started in order to deal with this problem. This link is useful to show the deep ideological divide in the community over this issue, and to demonstrate the near impossibility of reaching a consensus on the application of foundation principles through normal processes. | |||
| === Statement by Ludwigs2 === | |||
| ====Main question==== | |||
| Under what conditions is a controversial image protected by ]? Under what conditions can the project justifiably offend or disregard the perspectives of groups who find the image controversial? I ask that the committee clarify the proper use of ] and relevant policy on Misplaced Pages. The hope is for a statement of general principle that can be applied to obviate situations which (under current practices) inevitably devolve into entrenched conflicts. | |||
| ====Preface==== | |||
| This is an unusual request for an unusual circumstance, so I am adapting the request structure to fit its needs. I ask for indulgence. I will be referring explicitly to extended disputes at ] and ], but focus on the general, project-wide principle. All diffs are intended as examples of this general principle, not as specific references to the individuals quoted. | |||
| ====Statement of problem==== | |||
| My personal approach to controversial image is as follows: | |||
| * Images that are necessary to give a complete and encyclopedic description of a topic (''core images'') should generally be retained regardless of the controversy. | |||
| * Images that are decorative, illustrative, used for exemplification, or otherwise have negligible ''content'' value (''incidental images'') should be removed to keep the encyclopedia from becoming a party in the controversy. | |||
| This is, IMO, the correct reading of the intentions of ], and is borne out in the Foundation's recent ]. | |||
| Many editors on project take a stronger view of NOTCENSORED, where controversy is ''never'' an acceptable reason for removing an image.. This perspective, while understandable, can effectively circumvent ] and ]: images are used to make an claim for one side of the controversy, and NOTCENSORED is used to stifle talk page discussion. | |||
| The issue always follows the same pattern, independent of article topic: | |||
| #a controversial image is added to the article, possibly without people realizing it is controversial. | |||
| #*Pregnancy: an art nude added as lead image (problematic overall tone - is pregnancy really best depicted by an art nude? - may cause problems for browsing in public settings) | |||
| #*Muhammed, addition of images of the prophet (atmosphere of hostility towards Muslim beliefs) | |||
| #objections are raised, but are ghettoized as minority claims | |||
| #*Pregnancy:, , , , | |||
| #*Muhammed:, , , , , , | |||
| #positive reasons for removal are ignored under NOTCENSORED or dismissed out of hand, precluding discussion | |||
| #*Pregnancy:, , , | |||
| #*Muhammed:, , , , | |||
| #RfC's are opened, but opinions are too rigidly defined for any clear consensus; without clear consensus NOTCENSORED is applied again to retain the image(s). | |||
| The end result is article problems that cannot be addressed because discussion is stoppered by NOTCENSORED. The article ends up with images that add little, cannot be removed, and yet impose biases or drive people away from the article. Not only is this an apparent violation of the spirit of the project, it has a high pragmatic cost: endless, polarized, vituperative conflicts which ostracize minority groups and damage articles. A talk page focused primarily on suppressing discussion of images of trivial importance is not, in my opinion, healthy. | |||
| There are already 120,000+ words spilled over the Muhammad images, most of which (if they run true to form) run up against this ambiguity in the application of policy and principles. And that is just one page; volumes of text on this issue are produced on articles throughout the project. Clarification on this point would resolve countless amounts of dysfunctional discussion. | |||
| === Statement by {Party 2} === | |||
| === Statement by {Party 3} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) === | |||
| * | |||
Revision as of 02:44, 24 October 2011
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles | 24 October 2011 | {{{votes}}} |
| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles
Initiated by Ludwigs2 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Involved parties
I am not citing particular parties to this case, as it is more a matter of deep community disagreement than specific behavioral problems. I will leave general notifications on the two articles referred to in this request - Pregnancy and Muhammad - and notify those who posted the diffs I use for examples so that they are aware they have been mentioned.
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
pending
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_4#Lead_image_RfC a recent RfC at talk:Pregnancy, originally closed as consensus to move (and possibly remove) the image, but gradually reworked so that the image is now back as lead image.
- Talk:Pregnancy#RfC:_Which_photo_should_we_use_in_the_lead.3F second RfC ongoing, due to the problematic handling of the first, although with much talk about closing it on procedural grounds.
- Talk:Muhammad/images#Resolution_on_controversial_images current discussion on talk:Muhammad/Images, leading up to an RfC that has yet to be opened. However, the page has 15 archives of the same material and stiff opposition to any current change, so the RfC is unlikely to reach any clear consensus.
- Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_85#time_to_fix_wp:NOTCENSORED an abbreviated policy RfC I started in order to deal with this problem. This link is useful to show the deep ideological divide in the community over this issue, and to demonstrate the near impossibility of reaching a consensus on the application of foundation principles through normal processes.
Statement by Ludwigs2
Main question
Under what conditions is a controversial image protected by NOTCENSORED? Under what conditions can the project justifiably offend or disregard the perspectives of groups who find the image controversial? I ask that the committee clarify the proper use of Foundation principles and relevant policy on Misplaced Pages. The hope is for a statement of general principle that can be applied to obviate situations which (under current practices) inevitably devolve into entrenched conflicts.
Preface
This is an unusual request for an unusual circumstance, so I am adapting the request structure to fit its needs. I ask for indulgence. I will be referring explicitly to extended disputes at talk:Pregnancy and talk:Muhammad/Images, but focus on the general, project-wide principle. All diffs are intended as examples of this general principle, not as specific references to the individuals quoted.
Statement of problem
My personal approach to controversial image is as follows:
- Images that are necessary to give a complete and encyclopedic description of a topic (core images) should generally be retained regardless of the controversy.
- Images that are decorative, illustrative, used for exemplification, or otherwise have negligible content value (incidental images) should be removed to keep the encyclopedia from becoming a party in the controversy.
This is, IMO, the correct reading of the intentions of NOTCENSORED, and is borne out in the Foundation's recent resolution on controversial content.
Many editors on project take a stronger view of NOTCENSORED, where controversy is never an acceptable reason for removing an image.. This perspective, while understandable, can effectively circumvent wp:NPOV and wp:Consensus: images are used to make an claim for one side of the controversy, and NOTCENSORED is used to stifle talk page discussion.
The issue always follows the same pattern, independent of article topic:
- a controversial image is added to the article, possibly without people realizing it is controversial.
- Pregnancy: an art nude added as lead image (problematic overall tone - is pregnancy really best depicted by an art nude? - may cause problems for browsing in public settings)
- Muhammed, addition of images of the prophet (atmosphere of hostility towards Muslim beliefs)
- objections are raised, but are ghettoized as minority claims
- positive reasons for removal are ignored under NOTCENSORED or dismissed out of hand, precluding discussion
- RfC's are opened, but opinions are too rigidly defined for any clear consensus; without clear consensus NOTCENSORED is applied again to retain the image(s).
The end result is article problems that cannot be addressed because discussion is stoppered by NOTCENSORED. The article ends up with images that add little, cannot be removed, and yet impose biases or drive people away from the article. Not only is this an apparent violation of the spirit of the project, it has a high pragmatic cost: endless, polarized, vituperative conflicts which ostracize minority groups and damage articles. A talk page focused primarily on suppressing discussion of images of trivial importance is not, in my opinion, healthy.
There are already 120,000+ words spilled over the Muhammad images, most of which (if they run true to form) run up against this ambiguity in the application of policy and principles. And that is just one page; volumes of text on this issue are produced on articles throughout the project. Clarification on this point would resolve countless amounts of dysfunctional discussion.
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).