Wikipedia talk:Image censorship
Without any discussion of what "censorship" is, what is meant by it here, etc, this is useless. Dr Zen 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly agree. We shouldn't have any censorship, the way I see it, and I don't know of anyone proposing that we do have censorship. anthony 警告 04:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What?! You've already commented on lots of issues where people have proposed censorship! violet/riga (t) 14:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- He has never, so far as I know, supported censorship. Far from it. Dr Zen 23:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to say that he did, just that he's commented on censorship and people that have proposed it. violet/riga (t) 23:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- He has never, so far as I know, supported censorship. Far from it. Dr Zen 23:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What?! You've already commented on lots of issues where people have proposed censorship! violet/riga (t) 14:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dr Zen, Have you actually read any of this or Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images? It clearly states here that the guidelines and criteria would have to be decided upon - this is simply to look at ways in which images could be selected if we implement censorship. Don't just rubbish something so quickly, please. violet/riga (t) 14:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood. I don't intend to "rubbish" anything. It's clear that the discussion I mention is needed because a/ so far as a I know no one has called for any censorship, so this policy would not be needed, b/ what they have called for is the ability for alternative versions of pages to be available, which I agree there is a need for guidelines for and c/ I just don't think it's going to be helpful to frame this debate in terms of "censorship". That kind of talk has really stymied progress at Talk:Clitoris because the editors in favour of inclusive solutions have to defend themselves against unwarranted accusations of censorship, which they are not calling for, before they can even get to the substantive issues.Dr Zen 23:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, thanks. I think that censorship is gonna happen at some point and was trying to get a discussion under way as to how it could be implemented. By finding a solution I was hoping that we could see if there was a requirement for it, if you see what I mean. violet/riga (t) 23:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood. I don't intend to "rubbish" anything. It's clear that the discussion I mention is needed because a/ so far as a I know no one has called for any censorship, so this policy would not be needed, b/ what they have called for is the ability for alternative versions of pages to be available, which I agree there is a need for guidelines for and c/ I just don't think it's going to be helpful to frame this debate in terms of "censorship". That kind of talk has really stymied progress at Talk:Clitoris because the editors in favour of inclusive solutions have to defend themselves against unwarranted accusations of censorship, which they are not calling for, before they can even get to the substantive issues.Dr Zen 23:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about an option stating that if it is decided that images can be censored, then we should immediately apply that level of censorship to all images without exception? I'm serious, IMO a simple "display images/hide images" option in user prefs is probably the best way to achieve NPOV censorship if it's decided that there should be censorship here at all. Bryan 04:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is, Bryan, that some oppose warning users of the nature of the photos. Users who might be expecting a standard encyclopaedia article on the penis, for example, may be shocked and offended by the graphic photo of an erect penis (allow me to wearily point out that I myself am not offended by photos of anything, although there are some things I don't think we need to illustrate). It is not endorsing the view of those offended to accept it exists and cater for it, any more than we endorse the views we include in an article, if it is written properly.Dr Zen 23:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have no problem with labelling things with descriptive metadata, the problem comes when we try to decide what images should be censored. This is a value judgement and everyone's going to have different views on it, so no matter what images we wind up labelling as "censorable" we're going to get it wrong. Bryan 00:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this needs to be far-reaching, but I really think we need something in this respect. I'm very anti-censorship, and I'm no prude, and I could care less about the disputes on many of the genitalia articles. However, some of the images we're talking about go well into the realm of goatse. Wikipedia is not a shock site, and I shouldn't end up literally vomiting because I go to a Wikipedia article and find not only information, but also a shock image. In these cases, for gods sake - I don't think linking to the image is that unreasonable. Ambi 13:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow - one of my first visits to Wikipedia and I came across this. I started a family discussion on it and it nearly resulted in the first feud of the new year ;-) For me - the issue which divided us here mirrors the division I see on Wiki; an understanding of censorship vs self-censorship. I advocate the latter and oppose the former. The web, and Wikipedia in particular, has the potential to be the uber-resource. For this reason it should contain all materials. However, it should be possible for me (as an individual) to say "I understand that this material is here - please remove it". Google do something similar to this with Safesearch but in very broad brushstrokes. If it's there and I don't want to see it and can opt to avoid doing so - great; perfect in fact. If it's not there because you tell me I can't see it - Big Brother, worst of all worlds. I think your tagging solutions are valid and intelligent suggestions - but you should have to opt-in (just as google does with Safesearch) rather than opt-out; it could be just a couple of clicks and anonymous. Incidentally - my google Safesearch is off. But it's on in work. (See - it's my first time here - no idea how the user / time stamp info gets added :-o ) 01:50, 01 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Category:Possibly offensive images
[edit]I've nominated Category:Possibly offensive images for deletion. Any and all opinions about it are welcome. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this irrelevant? The policy is not going to happen.
[edit]This policy is designed to work out the implmentation of a policy that was defeated. It appears to me that the consensus at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images was "do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now."
Hence, we don't need to decide who implements a policy that is not going to be implemented. --Chris vLS 22:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Individual images are being removed, in part because they are seen by many as a problem. The photo at Goatse.cx went, and the photo which was at Autofellatio looks as if it will go, in both cases with many more votes than here or the previous general debate. So whether or not there is a general policy, individual images are subject to removal. --Henrygb 01:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The real problem
[edit]Just because you havent experienced it does not mean it doesnt happen. Lots of images are removed/restored as an extra drag to people. I do not see what is the issue. We are not censoring images, we are just showing it to people who wish to see them. If I want to learn about lets say Oral Sex and am very conservative, you should not force your "free" mindset conflicting with mine. Also you have articles like the Holocaust where you see the clear shame of war. People may want to learn about Holocaust without the images. People also faint when they see dead people. I do not see why people are making this a big issue. -- Cat chi? 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Battle Raper 2
[edit]Yeah...I'm wondering what's been decided about images such as this found in the Battle Raper 2. ~ Hibana 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
