Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 11 December 2011

User_talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1

What is the problem with controversial image use on Misplaced Pages?

Can I ask those who want a change in the way Misplaced Pages deals with controversial images to outline briefly what they believe the problem to be? Leave aside for the moment, if you can, any proposed solutions to the problem. Please don't engage in discussion in this section, and please don't add to this section if you see no problem. Feel free to edit, not strike, your comments as your thinking evolves, and keep it succinct.

Anthony

Placement of controversial images (of violence, nudity or religious subjects) can disaffect our readers. Sometimes controversial images are important to the readers' understanding of a topic (Depictions_of_Muhammad#Figurative_visual_depictions, Human anus, Human penis), sometimes not (Muhammad#Childhood_and_early_life, Pregnancy). The latter type disaffect our readers and add nothing important to their understanding, and this is a bad thing. Because many editors defend the presence of controversial images whose offensiveness far outweighs any didactic value, we end up engaging in literally interminable disputes which creates acrimony and wastes the precious time of competent editors.

Eraserhead1

Anthony explains it well, and there should be a line drawn between not censoring content and not being overly offensive. Its clear from this hypothetical suggestion and the lack of support for that - that basically everyone involved in the debate feels there is a line where they would consider an image offensive.

@Jayen466 The irony on sex is that we have a series of excellent diagrams to use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler

'Offensiveness' of an image is typically connected to, and often inextricably linked with, NPOV concerns. NOTCENSORED is being used by a large group of editors to declare valid NPOV concerns as tainted due to association with offensiveness. Their selective application of this trick is remarkably successful in pushing articles to a severely non-neutral state and keeping them that way. This was the brief version. Long version here. Hans Adler 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466

The problem is that a good proportion of our editors don't think that our imagery should reflect what is in reliable sources, but should systematically depart from them. NOTCENSORED is understood to mean that when it comes to images, our sources are all censored, and we are not. That flies in the face of all our fundamental content principles – WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV – because if we assumed that all our sources are censored, and we are the only exception, we'd allow editors to engage in OR to tell the suppressed truth, whether verifiable or not. We don't do that. But when it comes to illustrations, we often end up with insensitive imagery that is not in line with how reliable sources illustrate the same topic, and which is then defended using NOTCENSORED. So instead of using the expertise of reliable sources when it comes to illustration, we end up with an autopsy image of a sawn-off skull in the German meningitis article that no introductory text or website aimed at a general audience would use, we end up with home-made images of sexual practices that no RS would use, in short, we end up with more offensive or just insensitive images than wise, or necessary, or mandated by WP:NPOV. And I suspect that it diminishes the number of visitors who actually read our articles. --JN466 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: offence in itself should not be a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. The criterion should be practices in reliable sources, nothing else. However, complaints about offensiveness may be an indication that we are departing from standards in reliable sources, and should spark an investigation as to whether our illustrations are in line with them. --JN466 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page, in response to Anthony's question why insensitive image usage would be a problem:

There are several ways of answering that. They include the following:

• It causes ill-will towards this project, for no good reason (i.e. for nothing that could be said to have been done in the service of WP:V and WP:NPOV), so it's self-harming.
• If our illustrations depart from standards in reliable sources, we don't look like a reliable source. That makes readers take the project less seriously as a reference source, reducing potential good-will and support that would otherwise be available.
• Imagery that is needlessly and incongruously offensive reduces the number of people willing to stay long enough on a page to read and contribute to it, limiting both the project's readership (and thus its educational impact), and the number of people willing to become contributors (whose numbers are declining).
• Insensitive imagery that is not justifiable from the point of view of our basic content policies causes avoidable and needless emotional distress in readers. --JN466 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alessandra Napolitano

Misplaced Pages uses gruesome photographs, sexually explicit images, and nude photographs of minors in a way that violates WP:NPOV, if not WP:NOR, by adopting an extremely WP:FRINGE manner of presenting the subject matter that is rarely, if ever, used by WP:RS. This content policy violation has several deleterious consequences, including damaging Misplaced Pages's academic credibility, frivolously offending readers, and even temporarily causing access to Misplaced Pages from Great Britain to be blocked. Misplaced Pages is much too often used to facilitate social activism, presenting a David Hamiltonesque worldview that constantly pushes boundaries because it happens to coincide with the POVs of the offending editors. Since "censorship" refers to governmental or quasi-governmental action to suppress speech, such as the IWF blocking of Misplaced Pages, "Misplaced Pages is not censored" is a misuse of language. Exercising good editorial judgement and abiding by fundamental content policies, on a privately operated website, isn't censorship.
Responses to counterarguments:

1. What is "offensive" is subjective, and different for everyone. Since we can't avoid offending anyone, and adhering to the standards of some groups but not others would be POV, we should stop trying.
A: Misplaced Pages editing involves decisions concerning countless subjectivities. Since policies such as NPOV, NOR, and RS cannot be set fourth in mathematical precision, judgements are required. Moreover, "offensiveness" determinations aren't made abstractly, but in reference to the treatment of the relevant subject matter by reliable sources, like other decisions about article content.

2. When RS exclude certain types of images, there's no way to determine why they did this.
A: When RS exclude certain types of information from their text, it is often impossible to know why. Nonetheless, NPOV requires due respect for decisions by RS as to what information to convey.

3. RS are bound by commercial and social pressures to censor themselves. Misplaced Pages, standing head and shoulders above such malignant influences, cannot endorse censorship decisions by sources.
A: The view that RS are faulty, so Misplaced Pages should set things right is classic WP:ACTIVISM. This is no more acceptable for images than for text.

4. Deferring to image use judgements by RS for controversial content will result in intractable disputes founded upon which sources do or do not use what images.
A: No more so than NPOV's due weight provision causes similar disputes about text.

5. Since the tenor of images used to illustrate an article isn't part of its POV, deference to choices made by RS isn't required.
A: Then why all of the concern that "censoring" articles would violate NPOV?

6. Since WP:NOR allows original images, editor-produced photographs don't violate NOR.
A: While NOR also allows original text, in both cases the ideas presented are required to be citable to RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari

Speaking from my own experiences, there are 2 problems with controversial content on Misplaced Pages:

1. It is frequently used outside of relevant contexts.
   • girl, sun tanning, and ochre do not require nudity to properly illustrate them. Yet they all featured nude or semi-nude images of women at some point. These cases all violate the principal of least astonishment, which unfortunately is not a guideline on en.wiki. There is also debate about whether articles like pregnancy should lead with nude images, as it frequently causes complaints from people who were not expecting it. Sun-tanning, at one point, also lead with a topless photo.
2. We prefer to feature female nudity rather then male nudity.
   • Compare the infobox images for penis and vagina (Update: I've been informed this is due to bias in the focus of the articles themselves, not bias in image use)
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shorts&oldid=428589952

In many cases, these issues could be resolved with common sense editorial decision making, but quite often this is extremely difficult due to people abusing WP:NOTCENSORED as a license to put nudity anywhere in Misplaced Pages. At one point there was even a serious discussion about whether to include images of women being raped in the rape article. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines on Misplaced Pages that can be used to counter absurd abuses of WP:NOTCENSORED. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus

I think a controversial/uncontroversial dichotomy is unsubtle. The reason why an image in controversial is important. Images of pornography and extreme sexual practices are controversial but are also some or all of these: 1) harmful to young persons, 2) inappropriate for a charity (and imperiling to our 501(c)(3) charity status), or 3) misogynist in intent or effect. We shouldn't have these. (See Bukkake (sex act), Gokkun, Scrotal inflation, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) etc. for examples, and WP:HARDCORE for further exposition.) (As you can see I am not talking about simple nudity or non-extreme sexual practices, where appropriate.) These could all possibly all be called "prurient" I suppose.

Images that are controversial because they go against clerical, corporate, or governmental interests or enrage the superstitious are different. Images at Tank Man, Temple garment, Depictions of Muhammad, Bhopal disaster, etc. are inimical to some interests and therefore controversial. We should give short shrift to these interests in my opinion.

Unfortunately, grasping this subtlety is just simply beyond the capabilities of almost all editors here. It requires a grounding in moral philosophy and an understanding of what freedom of the press is for that is just way beyond the capacities of most people, who frankly cannot engage on this subject beyond a "two legs bad" bleating that all moral choices are relative and culturally dependent and therefore (supposedly) invalid.

"Controversial" is however an easy concept to grasp. Therefore, for purely political reasons, I would support the redaction of "controversial" images if this is the only way to get rid of the porn and extreme sexual imagery. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

An encyclopedia (or any dedicated tertiary source) has a responsibility to avoid advocating for any given side in a real world controversy. This is why Misplaced Pages has policies like NPOV, that ask us to present all sides of a dispute in some reasonable balance.

Controversial images (any controversial material, actually, but images are a special case because of the high salience of visual material - we are visually-oriented creatures) can be used to advocate for one side of a controversy in a way that cannot be ameliorated or balanced. For example, there is a real-world controversy over the question of whether abortion is a form of murder: text discussion of this controversy allows different opinions to be presented in balance to their prominence by bringing in countervailing sources, but a single image of an aborted fetus creates an implicit argument that abortion is murder that cannot be balanced - there are no 'countervailing images' of similar salience that can be used to make an implicit argument that abortion is not murder. Such an image efficiently violates NPOV and places Misplaced Pages in the role of advocating for a particular viewpoint.

It is important to remember that editors on any given article - and particularly on controversial topics - are neither typical of the general population nor neutral. Editors are a self-selecting group who edit articles because they have a particular attitude (pro or con) about a given topic, and that attitude can lead to image choices which reflect the editors' particular viewpoints but contradict the mores, standards, or accepted norms of our anticipated readership. This exacerbates real-world conflicts by making Misplaced Pages a party to them, and should be avoided. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SDY

The only real issue I see with it is the assumptions of bad faith that instantly lash out whenever someone tries to remove an image that is potentially controversial. It becomes a question of free speech rather than a question of writing a good encyclopedia. WP:NOTCENSORED should be balanced with a WP:NOTFREESPEECH - we're writing an encyclopedia, not a political manifesto, and shocking images of dubious value are bad content and should be axed, not preserved. SDY (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject to resolve image use problems

Since efforts to reform "Not Censored" for conformity to NPOV seem to have faltered, I've started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Image Neutrality to organize efforts to improve individual articles. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought: WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English. Also, are you familiar with WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals? Hans Adler 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The counterargument to that would be WP:ARS. {{Rescue}} is not considered illicit canvassing just because editors who visit the AFD after seeing an article thus categorized are likely to have a particular POV on the inclusionism/deletionism scale. No unfair advantage would be gained through use of the wikiproject, since any editor in good standing is free to form Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Not Censored or whatever. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we could meet informally on each others' talk pages like this and discuss the issue. Once everybody who wants to has chimed in above, we may be able to find a form of words that comprehensively and concisely expresses the harm being done to the project by present controversial image use practice. Then we can move on to compose a similar statement of possible remedies and their advantages and disadvantages. Only then will we be in a position to put something rigorous and persuasive to a widely advertised RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting an amendment to WP:NOT to a site-wide vote, with formal suffrage requirements, a pre-set percentage support requirement for implementation, and notices on every non-article page, might produce an outcome better representative of the community than the limited RFC we've already had. A vote would be the only workable format for a site-wide decision, since a discussion with thousands of participants would be more trouble than a Florida election. However, to do that, protected edits to mediawiki pages would need to be made. Any sysop worth their bit would almost always want to see some sort of discussion and consensus before posting site-wide notices. Therefore, a poll could be prevented by... the same editors who want to keep "not censored" just the way it is. Since they already have the outcome they want, namely, no consensus to do anything and a default to the status quo, why should they support rolling the dice? It might take an arbcom case or motion to actually start a vote - while arbcom won't change the policy, they might prescribe a conclusive process for a community decision. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an issue that can and should be dealt with by the community via a widely advertised RfC. We don't need arbcom's permission or directions. Special arrangements may be necessary for the vote, or not. A simple RfC !vote may do the trick. We can discuss that. But one thing I am certain of is, regardless of the structure of the debate, the outcome will depend on the persuasiveness of the opening argument in support of change. The first task of the opening argument is to demonstrate a problem; the second is to sell the solution. The purpose of the above section is to help with the first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean you want them to overturn several years worth of consistent rejections of proposals at multiple venues on the off-chance that the horse you've been flogging all this time might not actually be dead, if only you could have a process that you designed to give the best chance of getting your own way? Good luck. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No previous proposal in this area has ever been put to a site-wide vote. Instead, they have been discussed by extremely unrepresentative subsets of editors. Given that "not censored" has been disputed by a number of editors for years, and that the limited RFC has yielded no clear consensus either way, a site-wide poll would present an excellent opportunity to conclusively resolve this issue. Or, the disputes about "not censored" can continue indefinitely. This is not because the editors presently disputing the policy will never desist, but because new editors will pick up the torch. So long as Misplaced Pages's choice of images in sexology articles makes us look more like Hustler than The Journal of Sex Research, the "not censored" dispute cannot be ended. Neither AN/I nor arbcom have it within their power to restrain editors not yet involved in conflict from entering it. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No proposals about any policy have been put to a site-wide vote in the nearly 7 years I've been here afair. There have been RFCs and the like advertised aplenty, and the result determined based on the consensus of the editors who commented. In the case of proposals about censorship, NOTCENSORED, offensive images, protecting children from "harmful" images, etc, etc, there have been dozens of such proposals and on no occasion has there been a consensus to change or weaken the current policy. You will not persuade anyone to institute a new process until you can demonstrate that there is a need for it. Based on the consistent rejections and no obvious lack of input, I don't see anyone being convinced your side hasn't been heard. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous proposals have been based on subjective notions of decency and unguided editorial discretion: if a sufficiently large percentage of editors found an image to be objectionable, it would have to go. By contrast, the current debate is about NPOV: whether we are willing to base our content upon reliable sources. The current "not censored" policy is being abused to declare most RS "censored", such that their image use practices cannot provide any guidance for a "not censored" project. Thus, Misplaced Pages runs far afield from RS, cutting its own, original research WP:ACTIVIST path while bearing the "not censored" torch. The complete unwillingness of the RS listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Media coverage to reprint the offending album cover, despite that being the subject of their articles, provides a compelling disendorsement of our decision to include the image. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and so on are directly opposed to dealing in content which no reliable source will touch, irrespective of whether the RS may be denigrated with accusations of censorship, pandering to right wing prudish religious bigot extremists, or similar vitriol. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"No unfair advantage would be gained through use of the wikiproject, since any editor in good standing is free to form Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Not Censored or whatever." - Umm, no. Wikiprojects exist to foster collaboration, not to push one side of a POV. Suggesting that another project be created to push the other side is not a valid solution. Both would be divisive drama pits, and neither deserve to exist. As to the "site-wide vote", that seems like yet another attempt at forum shopping to me. Consistent discussion has consistently found consensus supports the current interpretation, but some people simply cannot accept that their POV is not supported by the community, and the result is that they simply try to argue their case over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the hopes that they will finally wear out their opposition, and can then pretend their viewpoint is the preferred. The amount of productive editing time people are forced to waste defending this project against editors unwilling to drop the stick does this project far, far more damage than does the existence of an naked breast or a religion's prophet. Resolute 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the number of active new editors declining?

I noticed you posted that on yout user page. The reason why "the number of active new editors declining?" is declining is because most volunteer endeavers don't have so much animosity, rudeness obnoxiousness and petty egotism. There is also an incredible amount of asinine stupidity and no sense of social responsibility. The Suicide article is prime example; something that can have a real-world effect on the lives of the people reading it, who more than likely are suicidal and it was full of stupid irrelevant crap. I re-wrote most of it but there is still stupidity on there like "Some species of termites have soldiers that explode, covering their enemies with sticky goo". A person who may be about to die doesn't give a shit about termites and "sticky-goo". I can't delete it and a few other things though because somebody doesn't have the common-sense to see it doesn't belong there and puts it back.

The nonsense over the picture in the infobox, which placed out of context looks like a tacky cartoon is another example, all the time effort and aggravation and the merry go round let me repeat myself three thousand times exchanges all just so a different tacky cartoon goes up there. September 11 attacks is another prme example, it looks bad and is written poorly, but if somebody with aliitle bit of competance wants to improve it they are "rebuffed" in a rude fashion by the very people who made it look like carp in the first place.

There is too much silliness. Can you imagine a professional like a neurologist saying things like "well that sounds like a case of WP:MEAT to me" also WP:ONEWAY and WP:GREEN EGGS AND HAM" and if you are not WP:CIVIL and continue this WP:BATTLE I will report you to A/NI". User:I lost my mojo and don't know where to find it12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no sense of altruism. Misplaced Pages can be an incredible resource to improve the human condition and the opportunity is being squandered. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well. I think it's already improving the human condition but it could and will do a lot better. We badly need more rational experts editing medical articles, but I don't see that happening until editing becomes pleasanter. Do we seriously expect educated sensible newbies to give up their time while we swamp them with argot, templates and insults on a text editor full of ''Some'' ] say <blockquote> they want to edit, and they're getting rebuffed.<ref name = jt104>{{cite web | url = http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682 | Gardner S | date = 2011.11.19 }} </ref> </blockquote> ~~~~ ?

Speaking of Suicide, should we remove that cartoon? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think people need to get off the ego-train, stuff like "This user made 3,674,987 edits" is silly and caters to childish egotism. I also think there are too many people that are creatively and intellectually challenged but don't seem to realize it. As far as the cartoon on the Suicide article, perfect example of ego and incompetance. Oh and BTW this edit to your talk page ups my edit count to 3,647,329 edits. Boy I r smart. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my point of view

I have never said that offensiveness should not be taken into account. I've said that offensiveness based on a religious perspective cannot be taken into account. Whether you agree with me or not, certainly you can see that those are different statements.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)