Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mirv (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 3 July 2005 (→Biography articles - reluctant subjects). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Censorship of censorship debate

I've removed the images from the censorship debate for the following reasons:

• Nobody can argue that some people find them offensive
• The inclusion of these images may discourage people offended by them from contributing to the discussion, thus biasing the debate
• They are in a location whereby you would not expect to see them (they are outside of, for example, the penis article)

Yes it's a little controversial and I am not saying which is my personal point of view on the matter, but I think it is necessary. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I support your removal of the images. The point has been made. The discussion does not need to have the images inline.-gadfium 23:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable to remove the images. The matter is not decided yet, and it is inappropriate to remove these things, especially as they are a matter of public record as part of a policy discussion here. I am restoring the images. --Improv 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The images were still left as links, anyone wanting to see them could do so easily. There is a principle here that images should not be shown in a context in which they are not expected. Some Wikipedians may have to avoid this page if they are at work, or in a public library, where the subject matter may be acceptable (or not sufficiently obvious to draw attention from others) but the images would definately not be. Personally, I edit Misplaced Pages at work while waiting for a compile etc, but I stay well clear of articles with images which might breach corporate policy while at work. A policy discussion page ought to be safe. Note that my general attitude to the images themselves is that they should be on pages where they are relevant.-gadfium 00:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also the principle here that policy discussion pages should not have parts of them removed that are relevant to the discussion. Policy discussion pages should not have relevant (that is, part of relevant discussion) content censored, and I feel this is a stronger obligation than them being work-safe. --Improv 01:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing the pictures from the Village Pump. Another point is that the Pump is fairly general. The photos are not certainly not relevant to all the other topics on the Pump at any given time.

Also, I disagree that removing the pictures is censorship. It's editing. Maurreen 05:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was going to remove them myself but I couldn't even look at the Pump here at work to do so. Keeping them there was excluding people from the debate. Filiocht 08:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I also support removing the pictures from VP. Work safe, and all that. This whole issue brings to light that Wiki needs some kind of user-selectable content filtering. Also, I question the wisdom of having a naked woman on the woman wikipedia page for similiar reasons (Does your average joe really expect to see a naked woman on that page?). Samboy 15:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, it's just a case of 'we can do it, so we will'. One of these days, one of these images is going to get Misplaced Pages closed down. Filiocht 15:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ohh yes, I can see the headlines "picture of naked woman in encyclopaedia shock!". Ohh in case you didn't get it that's called sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Jooler 15:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Improv but I've removed the images (inline) again. The images are part of the relevant discussion but are still linked. I could have my entire career destroyed by looking at those images at work and it is very easy for people to come across them without expecting them. The VP is not an appropriate place for them. This way people can still look at the images at their discretion rather than having them forced on them. violet/riga (t) 13:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a motion I, for one, fully support. Even though my stand on the matter itself is that removing a picture of a penis from the penis page would be ridiculous, and that "full frontal nudity" is not a horrible disgrace to an encyclopedia, and so on - these pictures do belong on WP, in their respective articles. The VP is not one such article.--TVPR 20:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Said pictures belong on the Misplaced Pages, where appropriate, but displaying them here adds nothing to the discussion and excludes legitimate contribution. I ardently, vehemently oppose censorship for the sake of certain people's puritanical sensibilities, but Improv seems to be going out of his way to offend them. ADH (t&m) 22:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I AM ON A 21" MONITOR IN MY COLLEGE LIBRARY. DO NOT PUT THE IMAGES BACK. --Alterego 01:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Following process on Templates for deletion

Who are we? Why are we here? I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here?

Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views.

If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. No need for debate, no need for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP.

But it is not so. I think {{widget}} should stay and {{blivet}} should go; El Supremo thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then?

Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones.

Recently, the nominated template {{divbox}} came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on the nominated template's Talk page.

Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page and simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?

• TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions -- here is an excerpt:

"It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept."

I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must all be destroyed. (!?)

This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work at the same time as we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do?

If we have come to the point where everything is up for grabs, please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which manage the way we manage the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement illegal?

If we have not come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Policy on Regional Notice Boards

I'm a fairly new Wikipedian. I'd just like to know if there is any policy on the establishment of new Misplaced Pages:Regional Notice Boards. I would like to establish one for Indonesia, to assist in coordination of efforts to improve Indonesia-related articles, but there is no policy listed on the page for such matters.(This question was crossposted in Misplaced Pages:Help Desk)--Daniel June 28, 2005 23:14 (UTC)

• No real policy, go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Biography articles - reluctant subjects

Two people who have Misplaced Pages biographies have recently appeared to censor some information out of the biographies. In both cases the individuals are active on the Internet and the information is essentially available on their own websites. One case is that of Romath, the pseudonym of a famous Usenet user. She does not want her real name posted. The other case is that of Chuck Munson, who does not want known his birthyear, the name of his blog, or his role in starting a couple of websites. Again, this is all information which is posted in the Internet, mostly by the subjects themselves. Both claim that harm will come to them if we publish the information while apparently believing that their own publication of it is without risk. My personal inclination is that people who have a high profile on the Internet and publish personal information should expect an encyclopedia biography to include that basic info. However, I don't see any guidance in the policies over whether biography subjects should have a veto over material in their biographies. On the other hand, we don't want to harm people. Any suggestions? Thanks -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:44 (UTC)

I believe very similar to this has come up before (sorry, I can't recall when), and the conclusion reached then was that if the information is public enough to be verifiable, then we can't do any additional harm by repeating it here, and if it's not, then it shouldn't be in the article anyway. HTH. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)