m →What is the problem with controversial image use on Wikipedia?: adding header |
→Jayen466: ce |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&oldid=462727815#Hans_Adler here]. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
'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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&oldid=462727815#Hans_Adler here]. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
===Jayen466=== |
===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 then defended using NOTCENSORED. So instead of [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-September/001341.html 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 [[de:Meningitis|German meningitis article]] that no introductory text or website aimed at a general audience would use, we end up with [[Fisting#Techniques|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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
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 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-September/001341.html 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 [[de:Meningitis|German meningitis article]] that no introductory text or website aimed at a general audience would use, we end up with [[Fisting#Techniques|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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Alessandra Napolitano=== |
===Alessandra Napolitano=== |
Revision as of 15:57, 28 November 2011
User_talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1
What is the problem with controversial image use on Wikipedia?
Can I ask those who want a change in the way Wikipedia 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 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)
Alessandra Napolitano
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's academic credibility, frivolously offending readers, and even temporarily causing access to Wikipedia from Great Britain to be blocked. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, "Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia, standing head and shoulders above such malignant influences, cannot endorse censorship decisions by sources.
A: The view that RS are faulty, so Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:
- 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.
- 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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
New WikiProject to resolve image use problems
Since efforts to reform "Not Censored" for conformity to NPOV seem to have faltered, I've started Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Not Censored or whatever. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:22, 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 Wikipedia'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)
- 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)