Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 1a | Question 1b | Question 2 ->

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 1b: Should there be a functional hatnote?

Q: The following hatnote is technologically feasible. Should it be added to the top of the article Muhammad?

To view this article without any images, click here.
See also Demonstration screenshots

(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1b

As creator, I agree 100% with your provision. Having "only one such article" would be inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV. The viable options are to add it "when requested by sufficient numbers" or to add it "to the toolbox of all articles". -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is not censorship: the images are there. This simply gives those who want to read the article to do so without being offended. Not doing this is a form of censorship because it makes the article unavailable to those who would like to read it but would be offended by an image of the prophet. This sensibility is real and should be respected. TheLongTone ( talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support as alternative to 1a. Either seems like a good idea. ChrisHodgesUK ( talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Affirmative wether this or via 1a, it adds an option without removing content. PuppyOnTheRadio  talk
  • DISTANT second choice again to deny a person the freedom to choose to conform to their religious morales because WMF doesn't censor is intollerant. By allowing somebody to make the choice, we show compassion and acceptance. It isn't WMF/wikipedia that would be censoring the images, it would be the community accepting other people with different views/stances.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Moved to distant second choice per comments to B-Critical below. The only reason why this would be a support, is if option A failed, I'd rather give people an option even if it is inferior than forcing our views on others.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very strong support The same should have been done at the Pregnancy article instead of censoring the nude lead image. This will allow greater freedom in Wikipedia while easily facilitating people's right to filter their own content. Be——Critical 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    Actually no, but I don't want to rehash that debate... but your brining up the Pregnancy article does raise the issue as to why this option is inferior to option A. In both articles, I would much rather have the ability for somebody to voluntarily opt out of seeing images that they might find objectionable---whether it is nudity, sacraligious symbols, etc than to blanket block all images. By blanketly blocking ALL images, we are literally throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are images in both articles which have value that would be blocked because we too concerned with a misapplication of "NOT:CENSOR".--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is also seems fine to me. Mathsci ( talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Seems fine to me too. -- J N 466 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support, even better than 1a. VolunteerMarek 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. this solutions should keep most open-minded readers happy. We should not force images upon those not wishing to see them, or hide them from those with the opposite preference. -- Wavehunter ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support It is a Founding principle "4. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." A hat-note is a no-brainer. Penyulap ☏ 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly support This is even better than the instructional hatnote. It is not censorship, and helps to make the article more accessible for some users. Thom2002 ( talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. This does not imply there is anything wrong with the article and supplies a tool that some readers may find helpful. I'm not enthusiastic about it, however! Geometry guy 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - and other possibly offensive articles. Who wants to pull up offensive images in a place where they might get in trouble for it, or be personally offended by it? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - it affects a lot of Wikipedians, between 1,2 and 1,5 billion people are muslims (about 22% of earth's population). If the custom forbids an image, we should honor that. On the other hand, every user has the right to see the pictures. I think having a hat note solves that problem satisfactory for both sides. I do not feel censored, if I have to make an additional click to see potentially offensive images. Common sense and courtesy, is that what's missing on wikis the most?? -- Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - Letting people have an option as to what they do not want to see is not outright censorship. Lucasoutloud ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly support. I think that this is a good idea. I can see a number of situations where this might be useful. I, for one, am interested in reading medical articles, but would like to be able to choose not to be confronted with photos of surgical procedures. Many Indigenous Australians do not look at images of Aboriginal people who have died; many Australian publications state a warning that they include such images, in order to give a choice. The removal of pics can also make a page faster to load. There are probably other situations in which this template option could be very useful. While Wikipedia does not censor, we can offer an option to our users, if they wish to do so. Why not? Amandajm ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Also effective alternative. Cla68 ( talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The same as 1a Bulwersator ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. Stifle ( talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. I like this one better than the instructional hatnote--no presumption of why the images might be offensive, just a button to click if someone doesn't want to see them for whatever reason. Seriously see no rational reason to oppose this, and I think it could be quite useful on other articles as well (aforementioned gruesome medical pictures, spiders etc.) Florestanová ( talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - prefer this one to the option above, but either is fine. Again, I see no reason not to do this. We should be making things easier for our readers, and this option does that. Robofish ( talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Good solution, and it can implemented to other articles where there are similar cases. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support There may actually be good potential for this device in general to broaden the content available on wiki. Where there are images, audio, video or other contents that are highly charged or known to be offensive to an identifiable class of people, providing this option seems highly useful to keep the doors of information open without having to make a determination regarding the value respect for religious against the value of the pursuit for open knowledge. AwayEnter ( talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Albeit, I prefer option 1.a because it is clearer to the reader as to what they can expect to encounter when visiting the page. If the former option is not available, I would accept this one. Veritycheck ( talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support I think option 1a and 1b are about equal in value, but between them I prefer 1b because it offers the user technology that can help them. The arguments citing censorship make no sense to me: Wikipedia reaches just as many people with the original version as it did before, and now it will reach more people as well. I used to listen to music on LPs. When compact discs were introduced, I could skip the tracks I didn't like by pressing a single button. When the record companies decided to divide compact discs into tracks, was that censorship? After all, this allows me to skip songs I don't like! No, that's not censorship, and neither is it censorship to provide someone with a button that allows the to not see the images on a page. — Lawrence King ( talk) 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support with 1a as my second choice. (My arguments in the comments have been in favor of 1a because I see the censorship arguments as being especially invalid when applied to a proposal that deletes / modifies no content) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in preference to 1a. This is simpler for the user, responds to valid concerns, and does not constitute censorship. It could be applied to other articles at editors' discretion. It's a useful tool. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in preference to 1a, as it is simpler for the user, with the same goal. FurrySings ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support for both 1a and 1b. It's not censoring, it's enabling people to make a choice, which is skirting the lines of self-censorship, but not crossing it. Let's not make broad sweeping judgement here about other things that may or may not be affected by the precedent here. This situation is fairly unique, and may the situation arise that more/many articles get the same treatment, which I don't predict, we can always come back to this, and decide it was not a good idea. Lets take the pragmatic approach here. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Support: Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). This is unobtrusive, un-astonishing, and sidesteps the censorship problem that so many editors seem to see. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support: While 1a sets a stickier precedent, this wouldn't do any harm if it appeared on every Wikipedia article. (not, obviously, that it should). Khazar2 ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support: This would be my first option with non-functional hatnote being my second. It does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, since it allows any user who wishes to view the images to view them, and allows any user who wishes not to view the images to not view them. WP:NOTCENSORED is not the same as "You must view this," and I think many articles with potentially objectionable content could benefit from a hatnote of this type for those who wish not to view potentially objectionable material. It allows for personal choice, not censorship. - Jhortman ( talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Yes, use technology to solve this problem. LaTeeDa ( talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Support. Will the hatnote be added to every single WP article that contains images? Mark Shaw ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). There are a range of articles on other subjects where this solution would also be appropriate. Smsagro ( talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • → Σ τ c. 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is a good solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way for readers to view the article without images could effectively increase the accessibility of the article. At a time when we're trying to expand Wikipedia beyond its English/Western roots, a small compromise such as this feels appropriate. Gobōnobo + c 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. My second choice, but still good. Bearian ( talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support for same reasons as 1a. However, I prefer the wording of 1a. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Mild support as we are getting into semantics here - show the concerned reader how to disable the images, or give them a link which disables the images for them. Having said that, I prefer the wording and functionality of 1a. My belief: "If you don't like it, you don't have to look." Censoring, in my mind, simply isn't an option in this case. When it's a major concern like this, I do like the balanced option of allowing the reader to hide the images if they so desire. Amarand ( talk) 19:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG support - Please, add header on the page Muhammad to see the articles w/o Muhammad's pictures. And better delete the image. Mbak Dede ( talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - non-intrusive, less disclaimer-y than 1a, and a suitable option for those who find the images offensive.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. It's a friendly gesture towards the murky-minded, and doesn't hurt the scientific spirit. Mallexikon ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose 1b

Additional discussion of 1b

The nudity comparison is a false on. Somebody searching, say, 'blowjob' can be reasonably assumed to not be offended by an image of such, or else why would they be searching for it? Of the people searching for Muhammad, however, a very percentage WOULD be offended by an image. I'm not saying that that means that there should absolutely not be an image, just pointing out that the comparison doens't hold up to scruitiny. Euchrid ( talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

By extension, does somebody reading a child pornography article expect pictorial examples? People interested in reading articles concerning sexuality do not necessarily desire to see graphic images. I object to the principle of removing offensive material and providing an unrepresentative view on the topic. To me, it is analogous to providing the option to remove the Israeli or the Palestinain point of view from all I-P related topics for reader comfort. Wiki should always seek to provide all relevant info on a subject.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork ( talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree with User:AnkhMorpork above. Brendon is here 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not a false comparison. Just because you want statistics or factual data on the mechanics of an erection doesn't mean you want to see a series of six pictures depicting the stages of an erection. Educational or some guy who wanted to put pictures of his dick on Wikipedia? You decide, I already have. My cmparison wasn't false but your selective example is false. You talked about "nudity" but then used an example about a sex act. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's necessarily true. Many people might want to find information about what a blowjob is without having to look at one. To what extent we should cater to people who want the info without the images is a question that applies in both cases. FormerIP ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No material is being removed! An optional, purely voluntary button to click at one's own personal discretion is what's being considered here. It's like the foul-language filters that can be turned on or off depending on an individual user's personal preferences that exist on many websites/communities. There is no institutional censorship happening here because the images are not being actually deleted. Florestanová ( talk) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think the closer comparison is Flag desecration. I know we get frustrated by nudity, but virtually no one is as upset as people accidentally viewing Muhammad. To my knowledge, Muhammad images are unique in their sheer power to upset unwary readers. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
At the risk of inflaming the situation, would it be appropriate to add a picture of someone burning (or otherwise desecrating) the Quran to the Quran desecration article? By any objective measure, such a picture would be relevant, and no more offensive than the picture in Flag desecration. (I'm not intending to add such a picture; this is a thought exercise - with the risk of WP:BEANS.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
It's hard to imagine a standard that includes Muhammad and Flagburning but excluded Quran burning. I don't feel the article is calling out for such an image, but if such an image achieved local consensus, it'd be hard to justified its deletion on based on offensiveness. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Flag and holy book desecration is certainly an interesting comparison. As someone who is mildly offended by both, I should point out that while I don't like those acts being carried out, depictions of them (including photographs of actual incidents) aren't in of themselves offensive. The issue surrounding depictions of Muhammad is that, to some Muslims, the image itself, not the person/act who the image is of, is what considered to be forbidden. Euchrid ( talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
You're quite correct that the Muhammad case is very different. When westerns get angry over a flagburning on TV, we're mad at the burner, not the photographer.
Some people really do want censorship. I don't care about them-- we can't give them what they want. Demands to remove images altogether are antithetical to WP.
But, looking past the extremists-- there are a lot of people who just want to read articles in public without getting in trouble with their peers and passerbys. These people don't want images removed from the article, they want a chance to "preview" the article before deciding to view images, to avoid embarrassing themselves. They don't want control of other people's screens, they just want control over their own screens. THESE people we can help. Surprisingly easily, in fact.
Most of all though, this is just for us. I'm proud to defend NOTCENSORED, but I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

"I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy." - English Wikipedia is not for everybody to read and edit.
Obvious criteria:

  1. Readers must be able to read English.
  2. Readers must have access to computer.
  3. Readers must have access to the internet.
  4. Readers must know and fully understand the policies and traditions of Wikipedia.
    and so on.
The thing is that you have to give something in order to get something.

Anyway, you don't have to be a computer genius for installing a software (these days it's even easier).

You don't have to be a computer genius or friend of a computer genius to simply follow quite lucid instructions in native english.

So, I guess downright lazy, hyper-sensitive users (same goes for fanatical or doctrinaire bigots) with unfounded, gratuitous demands for special treatment will not enjoy wikipedia like the rest, not because they are "non-tech", but because their mentality is intrinsically opposed to the several important Wikipedia policies, and their appeasement will affect others.

Wikipedia Editors should not take the trouble of modifying the interface (even in the least bit) only to appease the sentiments of minority which doesn't comply with Wiki-policies to begin with. Brendon is here 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Solving the generic problem

Question How do we decide where we provide these options and not? Certainly Bahá'ís generally reserve depictions of Bahá'u'lláh for special events, Muslims generally don't depict Muhammad, and some Christians (e.g. RPCNA) avoid depictions of God, but I know that I am personally offended by all manner of images about violence on Wikipedia and those aren't blocked, nor am I given the option to block them. Do my sensibilities not count? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course all sensibilities count. :)
If we know factually that our readers would like the option, we should offer it to them. Indeed, if we wanted to, we could add the button right into the user interface for every page. Imageless pages don't violate our principles-- it's just letting novice users do what experienced users already do-- browse with images off. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
If this option is made available on every article (or within the user settings) then I would accept it. I am entirely against offering this option and presenting this hatnote on only the Muhammad article. — FoxCE ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree that an option in user settings or under (for example) Toolbox in the sidebar to disable images would be both useful and acceptable. It may be feasible to have a non-persistent "hide images in this article" option in the sidebar, which would be useful for readers not logged in. Such an option must apply to all articles, because we should not make judgements about what people might find offensive; all articles should be treated identically. It might even be technically feasible for an option - for logged in users - to "add this article to my list of articles not to display images for" (similar in principle to "add to watch list"). This means that the reader chooses what is offensive, not the editors. Such an option would need to be unobtrusive, and/or hideable, so as not to clutter up the user interface for the vast majority of users who'll never need it. Adding something to the sidebar toolbox should be fine - it's already full of things I rarely use, and one more wouldn't be a problem. The fundamental principle here is that the reader makes the choice - Wikipedia editors make no judgement about offensiveness of images in Muhammad or any other article. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree that, if this function were to be implemented, there are plenty of other articles that it could feasibly be added to. I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument because, frankly, I don't see what would be so bad about adding this function to other articles. Plenty of candidates have been mentioned in this discussion, and I'd be happy to see this function on all of them. Euchrid ( talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Allow me to clarify that I would only support this function if it were added to or available on all articles on the English Wikipedia, not only certain articles that are deemed for whatever reasons to be appropriate. Given this, clearly a hatnote would be too cluttering, so perhaps it would be added to the "toolbox" sidebar as I have seen suggested. But that's subject to another discussion, not this one. — FoxCE ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree, and I suggest we start another discussion (somewhere?) on having a general option for logged-in users to disable all images. It would be turned off by default; if you turn it on, then on any article you are reading, there will be a hatnote or a sidebar link that allows you to turn the images back on. If you haven't turned this option on, I don't think there should be a hatnote on every article - the hatnote only shows up if you decided to turn images off to protect your sensitive eyes.-- Karl.brown ( talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Just found the following: Help:Options to not see an image, which gives a number of ways for people to avoid seeing images, even on a per-article basis. -- Karl.brown ( talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly. To toggle images back on, a user would have to tweak options again and reload. If we use the hatnote, the images are never more than 1-click away. Our hatnote will actively encourage users to turn it off, a browser won't. :) -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles it is a gross violation of NPOV. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Well the point I was making was the opposite-- our javascript will make it very very easy to "reveal all images" instantly. Merely turning off image loading in the browser would make it much harder to restore the images-- it won't allow for 1-click-to-reveal. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am against any image-toggle in the left hand toolbar. I am in favor of the proposal of individually configuring the browser not to display pictures (prevents any alteration to wikipedia interface or any article).

This "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can will be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

"To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly." — So what, Hector? You think some users' immense laziness is worth a modification on Wikipedia? Well, guess what, I don't.

"We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles" —
If it's about image toggle, then I agree Wikipedia shouldn't encourage its users to hide images that way.
But otherwise (if it's against the idea of personally eschewing images by configuring browser), It's an abject fallacy (diminished responsibility of the reader). It's also a misrepresentation of the original suggestion. Nobody has so far suggested that wikipedia should encourage its readers to hide images. All that was said is down below for anyone to read. We also need to take into consideration somethings like "Wikipedia policies" ( WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFA, WP:NDA, WP:IRELEV, etc) which are not sitting there for nothing.

1. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers ...
2. Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

You cannot ask wikipedia to adapt to your sensitivities, it's the other way around. Brendon is here 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

My thought is that if someone knows that they will be potentially offended by something or an associated image, the internet isn't the best place to search for that. I'm against clutter on Wikipedia, and in addition it seems like adding any kind of protection to articles like this in an effort to be unoffensive doesn't make the most sense given our goals here. Sermadison ( talk) 9:08, 20 March 2012
  • It's a slippery slope right down to "This article contains points of view which offend me; of course an 'abortion' article must describe how evil it is and how civilized people think of it as murder, so why is this article filled with this 'choice' crap?" Ravenswing 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Slippery slopes don't exist. They make large assumptions that people supporting one change (in this case a hatnote) are going to support another one (your abortion example). That is patently false. In my opinion, no matter what the debate is, any argument based on slippery slopes deserves zero weight. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't feel like either of the hatnote options really constitute 'censorship' as such. Censorship is blocking people from seeing something, these simply give people the option to avoid it if they want to, and view it if they want to. It would even (as I understand it) default to displaying the images. That's not censorship. Euchrid ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm also surprised by people citing NOTCENSORED over 1b. Browsing with images off is NOT censorship-- if it's censorship, then "Wikipedia has always been censored", which is absurd. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I see some inconsistency. This is much stronger than 1a, & puts us much more in the position of encouraging people to hide images, which seems to be rejected as being too much like censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
How so? Censorship is stopping other people seeing (etc) things; choosing not to see them yourself is not censorship. Johnbod ( talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
putting a facility in a prominent position for this one particular picture is labeling it as possible offensive, and that is very close to censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I can see where the intent of the functional hatnote is to allow users offended by images to not be forced to look at them while reading the article, while allowing other users to see them. But even if we are OK with encouraging the omission of pertinent content, there's another slope we slip down. Once we put it on this article, there will be thousands of other articles where people say, "Well, why does Muhammad get to turn off images, but this article doesn't? I want it on this one too!" Eventually every even remotely controversial topic is going to have either this same hatnote, or a contentious mob of sockpuppets willing to be disruptive until it gets put on. Let's therefore skip the tedious and unproductive step of having a thousand time-wasting discussions on a thousand contentious pages and just put a general "turn off images" button in the sidebar, as other editors have suggested. This may even be just a good idea technically - if any user is on a slow connection or has other reasons for wanting to forego loading images, that's a courtesy that en-WP offers to its readers, rather than being an encouragement to skip content and/or cater to (patronize) a minority of people who are saddled with an extremely proposterous fringe. This is the best way out, akin to when the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declines to take the bait of a broad and divisive constitutional stance (which would constitute making new law), but rather decides a smaller question particular to its case. That's not a punt, it's a practical decision against deriving first principles ass-backwards from particular questions. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The crux of a slippery slope argument is that you are afraid of sliding to a worse place. Image Toggle on all pages would be a better place for us to be, regardless of how we get there. Whether we slide there incrementally or whether we jump straight there as Zen proposes-- it's a useful feature. HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would like to support this proposal, and I find the slippery slope argument a fallacy (the world is not black and white, and compromise is sometimes desirable) but I'm not convinced it would actually help address the problem. As Tarc pointed out, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. Is there any evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer? ~  Kimelea  (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Don't look at "Image Toggle" as feature "for" extremists. You & Tarc are right-- there are extremists out there who really do want true censorship, and they will never ever get it from us. This feature isn't for them, this feature won't make them happy, this feature won't make them go quiet.
"Image Toggle" is NOT made for extremists, it's made for Wikipedians. We have NSFW pages and we often browse from work-- everyone could use Image Toggle. Most of all, it's for those of us who defend NOTCENSORED every day-- we would hold a firm moral highground if it were trivial for all users to browse every page without images, regardless of their native language or computer skill. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Sounds fair enough to me, but I think enabling self-censorship of any page is a different issue. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Q: Shouldn't this be implemented via browser settings rather than javascripting?
This is the right answer from a IT/CS point of view. But experience has shown readers and browsers aren't up to this job. Over telephone-- try talking someone over the age of 85 through the process of turning off images in their browser-- it doesn't work. Now imagine if there were language and literacy barriers too. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
For anyone else who found this here and was confused by it, it was moved by Niteshift36 from its original position in Oppose 1b. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Why would anyone be confused by it. It is the same editor, talking about why he thinks a hatnote is the way to go. It was placed with his comments about that very thing. My edit summary in moving it here makes the reasoning clear. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Because where you have put it sets it up as if it replies to my comment about whether enabling self-censorship addresses the blasphemy complaints. The comment you moved is a direct reply to a comment that users are already capable of self-censorship - a completely different point. You have taken it out of its context and therefore removed its meaning. People are not going to go back and read all the edit summaries to find out why the comment was moved (or even that it was moved). ~  Kimelea  (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Check again sport. I made the move BEFORE you replied. It was YOU that inserted your comment in between the ones from Hector. Look at the edit history. [1] Don't try to blame your errors on others. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Excuse me, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I inserted my reply where it belonged - after Hector's reply to my comment. My reply doesn't change a thing. The fact is that the place you put Hector's second comment makes it look as if it is a second reply to me, which it's not. Perhaps you thought that his second comment worked logically as a continuation of the argument he made in his reply to me? It doesn't - it begins with "This is the right answer from an IT/CS point of view". What is the right answer? Without its context, we don't know what job readers and browsers aren't up to, because it has nothing to do with what I said. It was a direct response to a comment by someone else, a link which is now lost. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
If I might interrupt this Penis Fencing for a moment, I have a suggestion. If a comment has 0% content discussing Muhammad images and 100% content discussing some other user, perhaps you should post the comment on that user's talk page. That way, those of us who wish to discuss Wikipedia's policies on Muhammad images don't have to wade through a large amount of unrelated material. I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Then instead of adding to what you consider to be a problem, consider keeping your interest in dicks to yourself. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think this conversation is done. Anyone reading this thread will be advised that a comment was moved and I think we can leave it at that. OSborn arf contribs. 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Adding my voices to the above, I support an image-hiding functionality only if it is in the sidebar/toolbox or user settings, and is universal. It can not be applied to one page alone. St John Chrysostom  Δόξα τω Θεώ 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply

With all the fuss over and complexity of the image filter (q.v.), it's amazing that we never got round to something as basic as a button at the top of every article "turn off images on this page". It could be discreet (top right somewhere), the button could be turned off in user preferences, and users could have images off by default if they want (so the button turns images on). Easy-peasy: just more power to users. And for those who for some reason are really bothered by the idea that someone who for some reason, in at least some situations, does not want to see every image available on Wikipedia gets the ability to do so - well let those think about how this ability would benefit users on slower connections trying to read Wikipedia. Probably not an issue for most editors, spoiled by DSL and cable, but for some developing country readers, and/or users on mobile devices, an option to turn off images may be useful. Rd232 talk 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Users of WikiReader already see a Wikipedia without images, and some of them report that there are pages that make no sense at all without images. This is something that Wikipedia must, by law, avoid - the Disabilities Act specifically says that blind people should be able to use a page (a good description of the image in the alt text is the usual method). Having a no images button on every page would lead to many of those "requires images" pages being fixed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
As global toolbox element, not article-specific hatnote

So far, I've heard a few arguments against the functional image toggle. Some are easy for me to dismiss. The slippery slope argument fundamentally misunderstand the proposal. A ski slope is intentionally slippery. Would we prefer a non-slippery slope--i.e. where only one article had such a hatnote?

Less easy to dismiss are the NOTCENSORED opposition. I feel like NOTCENSORED is being cited less as a direct policy guidance, but rather as a sort of "fundamental value" of our community that is at play here. So even though disabling images isn't "direct censorship" as I envision it, the people citing NOTCENSORED are still saying something very important and their voices matter.

The strongest objection I see, and the one I feel is most definitive, are concerns about neutrality. There is notable unease about dividing our articles into two categories: "ones people have objected to" and "ones people haven't objected to". Providing readers with this meta-data isn't a per se violation of NPOV, since the meta-data isn't part of the article, but I understand the palpable unease at the thought of there being "two classes" of articles, divided based on readers' purely emotional, irrational responses to them.

Based on all the feedback, it now seems highly preferable to just implement this feature in the sidebar toolbox shown for all articles. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  1. We are going way off-topic. I don't think this is the right page to discuss about a Global toolbox element to hide images. A discussion about universal toggle for hiding images is not even related to the article about Muhammad, and is verily out of topic here.

    Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but might have taken interest in the new proposal about universal toggle for images, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue.

    This should be discussed in a separate RfC. This is not the right place.

  2. Anyway, I disagree. This step would be antithetical to the spirit of Undue weight and WP:NPOV (will implicitly reflect a particular POV). Unjustified, irrational demands predicated on religious precepts, is not worth any modification on Wikipedia which will eventually seem like a reinforcement of self-censorship. That cannot be the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not encourage censorship in anyway.

    Moreover, I understand that some Muslims may be offended by these images of Muhammad just as some Jews maybe offended by images of swastika or an article about holocaust denial, Some may find the pertinent images in cunnilingus to be unnecessary.

    Again, we should also consider those who might find an "image toggle" to be disruptive or unnecessary.

    The right question is should there be any negotiation about the clearly stated policies of wikipedia? (More on this here)

    And if somebody is sincerely offended by seeing those images, then I should say there are ways to solve this issue, without this universal "image toggle" or any further (probably disruptive) modifications on wikipedia.

    The undeniable fact is, the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious tenets, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking all necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    Thus an "image toggle" is potentially disruptive and also utterly redundant.

    And this "image toggle" will inevitably draw undue weight to the controversial side of arguments because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as impetus for self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That will not be helpful. Brendon is here 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree. While the Muhammad article is the one that presents the most problems and urgently needs a solution, there are other articles containing images that some may find objectionable. Rather than putting hatnotes on individual articles, I'm coming round to the view that all articles should have a button saying 'click here to view this article without images'. That would be perfectly neutral, and I can't see how anyone could reasonable consider it 'censorship'. Banning the use of certain images would be censorship. Simply allowing readers the option of not seeing them is not. Robofish ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature. The slippery slope argument is primarily what this discussion is about. If we cave to the demands on one religion, then we'll need to add a hatnote on every article that might have content which is offensive to any other sufficiently large group of people. See my demonstrative (and somewhat sarcastic) proposal below. I would support a gadget which could be selectively enabled to hide images, or even hide only images that have been categorized as "potentially offensive", as this is a tool that is invisible to those who are not interested in it (i.e. most readers). A hatnote is visible to everyone, and only draws unnecessary attention to the "controversy" by catering to the demands of a minority of readers. I think the NOTCENSORED argument also applies to how easy we make it for users to self-censor and how intrusive the self-censoring interface is for regular readers who don't want to self-censor. This is one reason why so many editors (including myself) are invoking NOTCENSORED as a relevant policy. —SW—  yak 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
"Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature." - right, I concur. But that option already exists. Click here. Brendon is here 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree, and in fact suggested this solution independently above. I think it would work best if it allowed the user to toggle between an "images shown mode" and "no images mode" that would be remembered using cookies whether or not they're logged in. This would be useful for conserving bandwidth as well as dealing with visual sensitivities, and would avert discussions over which articles deserve such a notice. However, I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion since I don't think Muslims are offended by viewing the content but rather by our publication of it. Dcoetzee 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree. This seems to be an eminently sensible neutral solution and adds additional convenience. It should apply to all articles until further notice (or possibly till the end of the session or cookie expiry for non-logged-in users), Preferably, there would be suppression of future downloads as well as immediate suppression of display, which would save bandwidth and improve response times as well as having the potential to avoid triggering external filtering mechanisms that implement real censorship. It could also serve as a "panic button" for people viewing images that might be inappropriate for passers-by (children, religious fundamentalists, secret police, etc.). Developers should possibly also consider using a tab (like the watch/unwatch tab); it could even be a drop-down "quick preferences" or "temporary preferences" element with show/hide toggles for various features such as images, ToC, categories, links to other languages, etc., but feature creep is a valid concern. -- Boson ( talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Now that I think about it, I actually = Oppose a global image toggle for images on the toolbox. It places undue weight on the idea that images should be toggled on and off, while not providing a similar toggle for anything else. By providing such a toggle to "hide all images," while at the same time not providing such a toggle to "hide all text," we are implying that there needs to be more to be hidden for images than text. That is a bias against images, violating NPOV.-- New questions? 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think WP:NPOV applies to features like images, provided the feature applies to all images. We can and must have an opinion on which features we support. Similarly, it would not be an NPOV issue if we were to support suppression of animated images that could cause epileptic fits in some individals. Whether a user's perceived need for a feature results from a religious belief, a brain malfunction, or other disability should probably not concern us if we can implement a feature without unduly affecting other people.-- Boson ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • General Comment Re: Nudity, Censorship, Slippery Slope, Wiki Policy

1. WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED as the Basis for Argument: The existence of a barrier, no matter how small is in fact censorship, it cannot be argued that the hatnote is not a form of censorship. However, it is equally indisputable that the censorship of the hatnote actually prevents access to the content. In deciding how to present WP content, because WP is accessible worldwide, holding onto rules as being absolute would likely hurt rather than help the cause of WP as risk of being exposed unexpectedly to certain content, here the image of Muhammad, may deter entire cultures and religions from making contributions. It is immaterial if the images qualify as works of art, while that is certainly grounds for inclusion, it bears no relevance to the issue of implementing a hatnote. The issue of the hatnote being a form a censorship stands alone with respect to whether it is too restrictive.

HOWEVER - The risk of deterring large classes of people from using and contributing to WP when weighed against the minor inconvenience of clicking a mouse, or perhaps a dedicated key, is overwhelming. The hatnote in fact has a powerful potential to REDUCE CENSORSHIP simply by presenting the content in a way that ALL POTENTIAL USERS would feel comfortable accessing and contributing. Indeed, posting an image of Muhammad may make an individual feel he or she is part of a sacrilegious action (for participating in the display of his image) in order to contribute to the page. It logically follows that no one who strictly follows the religion is likely to contribute to the page. If we make the reasonable assumption that religious experts are also often devout followers of the religion, then it should be obvious that by clinging to a superficial definition of censorship regarding the image, we are hypocritically turning a blind eye to the deeper meaning of censorship. The effect of the image on the class of people who bind themselves strictly to their religion is a censorship to their editing participation and access to the written contents, leaving the responsibility of knowledgeable editing in the hands of those who do not hold the same values.

I believe that the hatnote itself serves as important knowledge to readers. Curious researchers would see it and immediately know that the content therein has particular significance, a fact that is often difficult to describe with words alone. In this particular case, it would educate and remind the readers of the seriousness of the content. The knowledge conveyed by the symbolic act of asking the reader to confirm he or she wants to see the content has only recently been made available when research could be done on the computer; it is a new way of communicating knowledge which is encyclopedic appropriate information.

As an aside, I would even suggest that this be used for nude images as a mere mouse click or tap of a dedicated key is likely to encourage parents to allow their children to access WP without risk of any accidental exposure to nudity.

A key point that bears repeating throughout the entirety of this proposition is that NO ENCYCLOPEDIC IS BEING BARRED FROM INCLUSION OR ACCESS

2. Slippery Slope and Wiki Policy: This crossed my mind as well, however, I have not read nor have I been able to come up with how this can be escalated to any level of reasonable concern. The furthest point imaginable, when also considering that WP is a world wide effort, would be if WP expanded the policy to include content that is globally recognized as worthy of a confirmation click. I don't believe that this could even go as far as an age verification because those are completely ineffective deterrents and would be a meaningless inconvenience. The hatnote is nothing more than a confirmation that the reader intends to view the content. Objections to this hatnote are (imo) as silly as objections to the question "are you sure?" And finally, there is little to suggest that this offends the policy of WP policy as no additional restrictions are being placed on the content that can be added. The closer monitoring and better defining of what is appropriate to post is most appropriately viewed as ensuring that only genuine facts that are verifiable and important to subject are included. This is in fact the intent for ALL articles, the accepted proposals make no compromises to WP policy, they are governed by the same rules, but explained specifically as it applies to this issue. I am optimistic that this/these article(s) will set an example of an ideal WP entry.

TLDR Version

1. Displaying Muhammad's image will prevent devout followers from reading and contributing their knowledge to the article. There is no censorship of content, the hatnote is just a mouse click. The value of having more knowledgeable people contribute + the value of open access to all >>>>>>> clicking a mouse. Also, the actual amount of censorship effectuated when there is no option to view without the image >>>>>>> censorship by a confirmation mouse click.
2. Slippery Slope does not apply because there is no where to go. The adopted proposals are not new, just worded to apply specifically to this issue, WP policy has not changed. AwayEnter ( talk) 06:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images/Question_1b&oldid=1142569808"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 1a | Question 1b | Question 2 ->

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 1b: Should there be a functional hatnote?

Q: The following hatnote is technologically feasible. Should it be added to the top of the article Muhammad?

To view this article without any images, click here.
See also Demonstration screenshots

(place answers under the subsections below)

Support 1b

As creator, I agree 100% with your provision. Having "only one such article" would be inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV. The viable options are to add it "when requested by sufficient numbers" or to add it "to the toolbox of all articles". -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is not censorship: the images are there. This simply gives those who want to read the article to do so without being offended. Not doing this is a form of censorship because it makes the article unavailable to those who would like to read it but would be offended by an image of the prophet. This sensibility is real and should be respected. TheLongTone ( talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support as alternative to 1a. Either seems like a good idea. ChrisHodgesUK ( talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Affirmative wether this or via 1a, it adds an option without removing content. PuppyOnTheRadio  talk
  • DISTANT second choice again to deny a person the freedom to choose to conform to their religious morales because WMF doesn't censor is intollerant. By allowing somebody to make the choice, we show compassion and acceptance. It isn't WMF/wikipedia that would be censoring the images, it would be the community accepting other people with different views/stances.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Moved to distant second choice per comments to B-Critical below. The only reason why this would be a support, is if option A failed, I'd rather give people an option even if it is inferior than forcing our views on others.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very strong support The same should have been done at the Pregnancy article instead of censoring the nude lead image. This will allow greater freedom in Wikipedia while easily facilitating people's right to filter their own content. Be——Critical 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    Actually no, but I don't want to rehash that debate... but your brining up the Pregnancy article does raise the issue as to why this option is inferior to option A. In both articles, I would much rather have the ability for somebody to voluntarily opt out of seeing images that they might find objectionable---whether it is nudity, sacraligious symbols, etc than to blanket block all images. By blanketly blocking ALL images, we are literally throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are images in both articles which have value that would be blocked because we too concerned with a misapplication of "NOT:CENSOR".--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is also seems fine to me. Mathsci ( talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Seems fine to me too. -- J N 466 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support, even better than 1a. VolunteerMarek 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. this solutions should keep most open-minded readers happy. We should not force images upon those not wishing to see them, or hide them from those with the opposite preference. -- Wavehunter ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support It is a Founding principle "4. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." A hat-note is a no-brainer. Penyulap ☏ 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly support This is even better than the instructional hatnote. It is not censorship, and helps to make the article more accessible for some users. Thom2002 ( talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. This does not imply there is anything wrong with the article and supplies a tool that some readers may find helpful. I'm not enthusiastic about it, however! Geometry guy 23:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - and other possibly offensive articles. Who wants to pull up offensive images in a place where they might get in trouble for it, or be personally offended by it? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - it affects a lot of Wikipedians, between 1,2 and 1,5 billion people are muslims (about 22% of earth's population). If the custom forbids an image, we should honor that. On the other hand, every user has the right to see the pictures. I think having a hat note solves that problem satisfactory for both sides. I do not feel censored, if I have to make an additional click to see potentially offensive images. Common sense and courtesy, is that what's missing on wikis the most?? -- Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - Letting people have an option as to what they do not want to see is not outright censorship. Lucasoutloud ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly support. I think that this is a good idea. I can see a number of situations where this might be useful. I, for one, am interested in reading medical articles, but would like to be able to choose not to be confronted with photos of surgical procedures. Many Indigenous Australians do not look at images of Aboriginal people who have died; many Australian publications state a warning that they include such images, in order to give a choice. The removal of pics can also make a page faster to load. There are probably other situations in which this template option could be very useful. While Wikipedia does not censor, we can offer an option to our users, if they wish to do so. Why not? Amandajm ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Also effective alternative. Cla68 ( talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The same as 1a Bulwersator ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. Stifle ( talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. I like this one better than the instructional hatnote--no presumption of why the images might be offensive, just a button to click if someone doesn't want to see them for whatever reason. Seriously see no rational reason to oppose this, and I think it could be quite useful on other articles as well (aforementioned gruesome medical pictures, spiders etc.) Florestanová ( talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - prefer this one to the option above, but either is fine. Again, I see no reason not to do this. We should be making things easier for our readers, and this option does that. Robofish ( talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Good solution, and it can implemented to other articles where there are similar cases. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support There may actually be good potential for this device in general to broaden the content available on wiki. Where there are images, audio, video or other contents that are highly charged or known to be offensive to an identifiable class of people, providing this option seems highly useful to keep the doors of information open without having to make a determination regarding the value respect for religious against the value of the pursuit for open knowledge. AwayEnter ( talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Albeit, I prefer option 1.a because it is clearer to the reader as to what they can expect to encounter when visiting the page. If the former option is not available, I would accept this one. Veritycheck ( talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support I think option 1a and 1b are about equal in value, but between them I prefer 1b because it offers the user technology that can help them. The arguments citing censorship make no sense to me: Wikipedia reaches just as many people with the original version as it did before, and now it will reach more people as well. I used to listen to music on LPs. When compact discs were introduced, I could skip the tracks I didn't like by pressing a single button. When the record companies decided to divide compact discs into tracks, was that censorship? After all, this allows me to skip songs I don't like! No, that's not censorship, and neither is it censorship to provide someone with a button that allows the to not see the images on a page. — Lawrence King ( talk) 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support with 1a as my second choice. (My arguments in the comments have been in favor of 1a because I see the censorship arguments as being especially invalid when applied to a proposal that deletes / modifies no content) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in preference to 1a. This is simpler for the user, responds to valid concerns, and does not constitute censorship. It could be applied to other articles at editors' discretion. It's a useful tool. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in preference to 1a, as it is simpler for the user, with the same goal. FurrySings ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support for both 1a and 1b. It's not censoring, it's enabling people to make a choice, which is skirting the lines of self-censorship, but not crossing it. Let's not make broad sweeping judgement here about other things that may or may not be affected by the precedent here. This situation is fairly unique, and may the situation arise that more/many articles get the same treatment, which I don't predict, we can always come back to this, and decide it was not a good idea. Lets take the pragmatic approach here. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Support: Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). This is unobtrusive, un-astonishing, and sidesteps the censorship problem that so many editors seem to see. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support: While 1a sets a stickier precedent, this wouldn't do any harm if it appeared on every Wikipedia article. (not, obviously, that it should). Khazar2 ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support: This would be my first option with non-functional hatnote being my second. It does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, since it allows any user who wishes to view the images to view them, and allows any user who wishes not to view the images to not view them. WP:NOTCENSORED is not the same as "You must view this," and I think many articles with potentially objectionable content could benefit from a hatnote of this type for those who wish not to view potentially objectionable material. It allows for personal choice, not censorship. - Jhortman ( talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Yes, use technology to solve this problem. LaTeeDa ( talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Support. Will the hatnote be added to every single WP article that contains images? Mark Shaw ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Excellent use of technology to solve a longstanding problem (especially if used in conjunction with the calligraphic depiction in the Lead/infobox). There are a range of articles on other subjects where this solution would also be appropriate. Smsagro ( talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • → Σ τ c. 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is a good solution for a unique problem. It's courteous and respectful. Providing a simple way for readers to view the article without images could effectively increase the accessibility of the article. At a time when we're trying to expand Wikipedia beyond its English/Western roots, a small compromise such as this feels appropriate. Gobōnobo + c 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support. My second choice, but still good. Bearian ( talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support for same reasons as 1a. However, I prefer the wording of 1a. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Mild support as we are getting into semantics here - show the concerned reader how to disable the images, or give them a link which disables the images for them. Having said that, I prefer the wording and functionality of 1a. My belief: "If you don't like it, you don't have to look." Censoring, in my mind, simply isn't an option in this case. When it's a major concern like this, I do like the balanced option of allowing the reader to hide the images if they so desire. Amarand ( talk) 19:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG support - Please, add header on the page Muhammad to see the articles w/o Muhammad's pictures. And better delete the image. Mbak Dede ( talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - non-intrusive, less disclaimer-y than 1a, and a suitable option for those who find the images offensive.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. It's a friendly gesture towards the murky-minded, and doesn't hurt the scientific spirit. Mallexikon ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose 1b

Additional discussion of 1b

The nudity comparison is a false on. Somebody searching, say, 'blowjob' can be reasonably assumed to not be offended by an image of such, or else why would they be searching for it? Of the people searching for Muhammad, however, a very percentage WOULD be offended by an image. I'm not saying that that means that there should absolutely not be an image, just pointing out that the comparison doens't hold up to scruitiny. Euchrid ( talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

By extension, does somebody reading a child pornography article expect pictorial examples? People interested in reading articles concerning sexuality do not necessarily desire to see graphic images. I object to the principle of removing offensive material and providing an unrepresentative view on the topic. To me, it is analogous to providing the option to remove the Israeli or the Palestinain point of view from all I-P related topics for reader comfort. Wiki should always seek to provide all relevant info on a subject.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork ( talk) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree with User:AnkhMorpork above. Brendon is here 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not a false comparison. Just because you want statistics or factual data on the mechanics of an erection doesn't mean you want to see a series of six pictures depicting the stages of an erection. Educational or some guy who wanted to put pictures of his dick on Wikipedia? You decide, I already have. My cmparison wasn't false but your selective example is false. You talked about "nudity" but then used an example about a sex act. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's necessarily true. Many people might want to find information about what a blowjob is without having to look at one. To what extent we should cater to people who want the info without the images is a question that applies in both cases. FormerIP ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No material is being removed! An optional, purely voluntary button to click at one's own personal discretion is what's being considered here. It's like the foul-language filters that can be turned on or off depending on an individual user's personal preferences that exist on many websites/communities. There is no institutional censorship happening here because the images are not being actually deleted. Florestanová ( talk) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think the closer comparison is Flag desecration. I know we get frustrated by nudity, but virtually no one is as upset as people accidentally viewing Muhammad. To my knowledge, Muhammad images are unique in their sheer power to upset unwary readers. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 06:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
At the risk of inflaming the situation, would it be appropriate to add a picture of someone burning (or otherwise desecrating) the Quran to the Quran desecration article? By any objective measure, such a picture would be relevant, and no more offensive than the picture in Flag desecration. (I'm not intending to add such a picture; this is a thought exercise - with the risk of WP:BEANS.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
It's hard to imagine a standard that includes Muhammad and Flagburning but excluded Quran burning. I don't feel the article is calling out for such an image, but if such an image achieved local consensus, it'd be hard to justified its deletion on based on offensiveness. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Flag and holy book desecration is certainly an interesting comparison. As someone who is mildly offended by both, I should point out that while I don't like those acts being carried out, depictions of them (including photographs of actual incidents) aren't in of themselves offensive. The issue surrounding depictions of Muhammad is that, to some Muslims, the image itself, not the person/act who the image is of, is what considered to be forbidden. Euchrid ( talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
You're quite correct that the Muhammad case is very different. When westerns get angry over a flagburning on TV, we're mad at the burner, not the photographer.
Some people really do want censorship. I don't care about them-- we can't give them what they want. Demands to remove images altogether are antithetical to WP.
But, looking past the extremists-- there are a lot of people who just want to read articles in public without getting in trouble with their peers and passerbys. These people don't want images removed from the article, they want a chance to "preview" the article before deciding to view images, to avoid embarrassing themselves. They don't want control of other people's screens, they just want control over their own screens. THESE people we can help. Surprisingly easily, in fact.
Most of all though, this is just for us. I'm proud to defend NOTCENSORED, but I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

"I'd be more proud if I knew we didn't impose a computer "literacy test" on our readers who want to browse without images. Non-tech-saavy readers should be able to enjoy the same reading experience that the rest of us enjoy." - English Wikipedia is not for everybody to read and edit.
Obvious criteria:

  1. Readers must be able to read English.
  2. Readers must have access to computer.
  3. Readers must have access to the internet.
  4. Readers must know and fully understand the policies and traditions of Wikipedia.
    and so on.
The thing is that you have to give something in order to get something.

Anyway, you don't have to be a computer genius for installing a software (these days it's even easier).

You don't have to be a computer genius or friend of a computer genius to simply follow quite lucid instructions in native english.

So, I guess downright lazy, hyper-sensitive users (same goes for fanatical or doctrinaire bigots) with unfounded, gratuitous demands for special treatment will not enjoy wikipedia like the rest, not because they are "non-tech", but because their mentality is intrinsically opposed to the several important Wikipedia policies, and their appeasement will affect others.

Wikipedia Editors should not take the trouble of modifying the interface (even in the least bit) only to appease the sentiments of minority which doesn't comply with Wiki-policies to begin with. Brendon is here 14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Solving the generic problem

Question How do we decide where we provide these options and not? Certainly Bahá'ís generally reserve depictions of Bahá'u'lláh for special events, Muslims generally don't depict Muhammad, and some Christians (e.g. RPCNA) avoid depictions of God, but I know that I am personally offended by all manner of images about violence on Wikipedia and those aren't blocked, nor am I given the option to block them. Do my sensibilities not count? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course all sensibilities count. :)
If we know factually that our readers would like the option, we should offer it to them. Indeed, if we wanted to, we could add the button right into the user interface for every page. Imageless pages don't violate our principles-- it's just letting novice users do what experienced users already do-- browse with images off. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
If this option is made available on every article (or within the user settings) then I would accept it. I am entirely against offering this option and presenting this hatnote on only the Muhammad article. — FoxCE ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree that an option in user settings or under (for example) Toolbox in the sidebar to disable images would be both useful and acceptable. It may be feasible to have a non-persistent "hide images in this article" option in the sidebar, which would be useful for readers not logged in. Such an option must apply to all articles, because we should not make judgements about what people might find offensive; all articles should be treated identically. It might even be technically feasible for an option - for logged in users - to "add this article to my list of articles not to display images for" (similar in principle to "add to watch list"). This means that the reader chooses what is offensive, not the editors. Such an option would need to be unobtrusive, and/or hideable, so as not to clutter up the user interface for the vast majority of users who'll never need it. Adding something to the sidebar toolbox should be fine - it's already full of things I rarely use, and one more wouldn't be a problem. The fundamental principle here is that the reader makes the choice - Wikipedia editors make no judgement about offensiveness of images in Muhammad or any other article. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree that, if this function were to be implemented, there are plenty of other articles that it could feasibly be added to. I disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument because, frankly, I don't see what would be so bad about adding this function to other articles. Plenty of candidates have been mentioned in this discussion, and I'd be happy to see this function on all of them. Euchrid ( talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Allow me to clarify that I would only support this function if it were added to or available on all articles on the English Wikipedia, not only certain articles that are deemed for whatever reasons to be appropriate. Given this, clearly a hatnote would be too cluttering, so perhaps it would be added to the "toolbox" sidebar as I have seen suggested. But that's subject to another discussion, not this one. — FoxCE ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree, and I suggest we start another discussion (somewhere?) on having a general option for logged-in users to disable all images. It would be turned off by default; if you turn it on, then on any article you are reading, there will be a hatnote or a sidebar link that allows you to turn the images back on. If you haven't turned this option on, I don't think there should be a hatnote on every article - the hatnote only shows up if you decided to turn images off to protect your sensitive eyes.-- Karl.brown ( talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Just found the following: Help:Options to not see an image, which gives a number of ways for people to avoid seeing images, even on a per-article basis. -- Karl.brown ( talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly. To toggle images back on, a user would have to tweak options again and reload. If we use the hatnote, the images are never more than 1-click away. Our hatnote will actively encourage users to turn it off, a browser won't. :) -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles it is a gross violation of NPOV. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Well the point I was making was the opposite-- our javascript will make it very very easy to "reveal all images" instantly. Merely turning off image loading in the browser would make it much harder to restore the images-- it won't allow for 1-click-to-reveal. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am against any image-toggle in the left hand toolbar. I am in favor of the proposal of individually configuring the browser not to display pictures (prevents any alteration to wikipedia interface or any article).

This "image toggle" or "toolbox" or whatever that you're proposing is utterly redundant and gives undue weight to the controversial side of argument spectrum because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can will be seen as an impetus towards self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That is not helpful.

"To people suggesting that this be done by turning off images in the browser-- we could do that, but it wouldn't allow for 1-click-to-reveal-all-images instantly." — So what, Hector? You think some users' immense laziness is worth a modification on Wikipedia? Well, guess what, I don't.

"We really shouldn't be encouraging users to turn images off, unless we encourage them to do it for all articles" —
If it's about image toggle, then I agree Wikipedia shouldn't encourage its users to hide images that way.
But otherwise (if it's against the idea of personally eschewing images by configuring browser), It's an abject fallacy (diminished responsibility of the reader). It's also a misrepresentation of the original suggestion. Nobody has so far suggested that wikipedia should encourage its readers to hide images. All that was said is down below for anyone to read. We also need to take into consideration somethings like "Wikipedia policies" ( WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFA, WP:NDA, WP:IRELEV, etc) which are not sitting there for nothing.

1. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers ...
2. Any rules that forbid members of a given ... religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

I acknowledge that "hiding" images is not literally the same as "removing" images, but to me the spirit of the policy is clear: the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious precepts, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

You cannot ask wikipedia to adapt to your sensitivities, it's the other way around. Brendon is here 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

My thought is that if someone knows that they will be potentially offended by something or an associated image, the internet isn't the best place to search for that. I'm against clutter on Wikipedia, and in addition it seems like adding any kind of protection to articles like this in an effort to be unoffensive doesn't make the most sense given our goals here. Sermadison ( talk) 9:08, 20 March 2012
  • It's a slippery slope right down to "This article contains points of view which offend me; of course an 'abortion' article must describe how evil it is and how civilized people think of it as murder, so why is this article filled with this 'choice' crap?" Ravenswing 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Slippery slopes don't exist. They make large assumptions that people supporting one change (in this case a hatnote) are going to support another one (your abortion example). That is patently false. In my opinion, no matter what the debate is, any argument based on slippery slopes deserves zero weight. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't feel like either of the hatnote options really constitute 'censorship' as such. Censorship is blocking people from seeing something, these simply give people the option to avoid it if they want to, and view it if they want to. It would even (as I understand it) default to displaying the images. That's not censorship. Euchrid ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm also surprised by people citing NOTCENSORED over 1b. Browsing with images off is NOT censorship-- if it's censorship, then "Wikipedia has always been censored", which is absurd. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I see some inconsistency. This is much stronger than 1a, & puts us much more in the position of encouraging people to hide images, which seems to be rejected as being too much like censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
How so? Censorship is stopping other people seeing (etc) things; choosing not to see them yourself is not censorship. Johnbod ( talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
putting a facility in a prominent position for this one particular picture is labeling it as possible offensive, and that is very close to censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
So put it somewhere less prominent. Toolbox, in the Userinterface above the title, etc. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I can see where the intent of the functional hatnote is to allow users offended by images to not be forced to look at them while reading the article, while allowing other users to see them. But even if we are OK with encouraging the omission of pertinent content, there's another slope we slip down. Once we put it on this article, there will be thousands of other articles where people say, "Well, why does Muhammad get to turn off images, but this article doesn't? I want it on this one too!" Eventually every even remotely controversial topic is going to have either this same hatnote, or a contentious mob of sockpuppets willing to be disruptive until it gets put on. Let's therefore skip the tedious and unproductive step of having a thousand time-wasting discussions on a thousand contentious pages and just put a general "turn off images" button in the sidebar, as other editors have suggested. This may even be just a good idea technically - if any user is on a slow connection or has other reasons for wanting to forego loading images, that's a courtesy that en-WP offers to its readers, rather than being an encouragement to skip content and/or cater to (patronize) a minority of people who are saddled with an extremely proposterous fringe. This is the best way out, akin to when the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declines to take the bait of a broad and divisive constitutional stance (which would constitute making new law), but rather decides a smaller question particular to its case. That's not a punt, it's a practical decision against deriving first principles ass-backwards from particular questions. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The crux of a slippery slope argument is that you are afraid of sliding to a worse place. Image Toggle on all pages would be a better place for us to be, regardless of how we get there. Whether we slide there incrementally or whether we jump straight there as Zen proposes-- it's a useful feature. HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would like to support this proposal, and I find the slippery slope argument a fallacy (the world is not black and white, and compromise is sometimes desirable) but I'm not convinced it would actually help address the problem. As Tarc pointed out, the objection seems to be to the existence and propagation of the images, not to the complainer having seen them. Is there any evidence that any of the people who claim blasphemy would be satisfied with having the images hidden on their computer? ~  Kimelea  (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Don't look at "Image Toggle" as feature "for" extremists. You & Tarc are right-- there are extremists out there who really do want true censorship, and they will never ever get it from us. This feature isn't for them, this feature won't make them happy, this feature won't make them go quiet.
"Image Toggle" is NOT made for extremists, it's made for Wikipedians. We have NSFW pages and we often browse from work-- everyone could use Image Toggle. Most of all, it's for those of us who defend NOTCENSORED every day-- we would hold a firm moral highground if it were trivial for all users to browse every page without images, regardless of their native language or computer skill. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Sounds fair enough to me, but I think enabling self-censorship of any page is a different issue. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Q: Shouldn't this be implemented via browser settings rather than javascripting?
This is the right answer from a IT/CS point of view. But experience has shown readers and browsers aren't up to this job. Over telephone-- try talking someone over the age of 85 through the process of turning off images in their browser-- it doesn't work. Now imagine if there were language and literacy barriers too. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
For anyone else who found this here and was confused by it, it was moved by Niteshift36 from its original position in Oppose 1b. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Why would anyone be confused by it. It is the same editor, talking about why he thinks a hatnote is the way to go. It was placed with his comments about that very thing. My edit summary in moving it here makes the reasoning clear. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Because where you have put it sets it up as if it replies to my comment about whether enabling self-censorship addresses the blasphemy complaints. The comment you moved is a direct reply to a comment that users are already capable of self-censorship - a completely different point. You have taken it out of its context and therefore removed its meaning. People are not going to go back and read all the edit summaries to find out why the comment was moved (or even that it was moved). ~  Kimelea  (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Check again sport. I made the move BEFORE you replied. It was YOU that inserted your comment in between the ones from Hector. Look at the edit history. [1] Don't try to blame your errors on others. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Excuse me, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I inserted my reply where it belonged - after Hector's reply to my comment. My reply doesn't change a thing. The fact is that the place you put Hector's second comment makes it look as if it is a second reply to me, which it's not. Perhaps you thought that his second comment worked logically as a continuation of the argument he made in his reply to me? It doesn't - it begins with "This is the right answer from an IT/CS point of view". What is the right answer? Without its context, we don't know what job readers and browsers aren't up to, because it has nothing to do with what I said. It was a direct response to a comment by someone else, a link which is now lost. ~  Kimelea  (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The history shows what I said is correct. Nothing you say will change it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
If I might interrupt this Penis Fencing for a moment, I have a suggestion. If a comment has 0% content discussing Muhammad images and 100% content discussing some other user, perhaps you should post the comment on that user's talk page. That way, those of us who wish to discuss Wikipedia's policies on Muhammad images don't have to wade through a large amount of unrelated material. I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Then instead of adding to what you consider to be a problem, consider keeping your interest in dicks to yourself. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think this conversation is done. Anyone reading this thread will be advised that a comment was moved and I think we can leave it at that. OSborn arf contribs. 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Adding my voices to the above, I support an image-hiding functionality only if it is in the sidebar/toolbox or user settings, and is universal. It can not be applied to one page alone. St John Chrysostom  Δόξα τω Θεώ 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply

With all the fuss over and complexity of the image filter (q.v.), it's amazing that we never got round to something as basic as a button at the top of every article "turn off images on this page". It could be discreet (top right somewhere), the button could be turned off in user preferences, and users could have images off by default if they want (so the button turns images on). Easy-peasy: just more power to users. And for those who for some reason are really bothered by the idea that someone who for some reason, in at least some situations, does not want to see every image available on Wikipedia gets the ability to do so - well let those think about how this ability would benefit users on slower connections trying to read Wikipedia. Probably not an issue for most editors, spoiled by DSL and cable, but for some developing country readers, and/or users on mobile devices, an option to turn off images may be useful. Rd232 talk 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Users of WikiReader already see a Wikipedia without images, and some of them report that there are pages that make no sense at all without images. This is something that Wikipedia must, by law, avoid - the Disabilities Act specifically says that blind people should be able to use a page (a good description of the image in the alt text is the usual method). Having a no images button on every page would lead to many of those "requires images" pages being fixed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply
As global toolbox element, not article-specific hatnote

So far, I've heard a few arguments against the functional image toggle. Some are easy for me to dismiss. The slippery slope argument fundamentally misunderstand the proposal. A ski slope is intentionally slippery. Would we prefer a non-slippery slope--i.e. where only one article had such a hatnote?

Less easy to dismiss are the NOTCENSORED opposition. I feel like NOTCENSORED is being cited less as a direct policy guidance, but rather as a sort of "fundamental value" of our community that is at play here. So even though disabling images isn't "direct censorship" as I envision it, the people citing NOTCENSORED are still saying something very important and their voices matter.

The strongest objection I see, and the one I feel is most definitive, are concerns about neutrality. There is notable unease about dividing our articles into two categories: "ones people have objected to" and "ones people haven't objected to". Providing readers with this meta-data isn't a per se violation of NPOV, since the meta-data isn't part of the article, but I understand the palpable unease at the thought of there being "two classes" of articles, divided based on readers' purely emotional, irrational responses to them.

Based on all the feedback, it now seems highly preferable to just implement this feature in the sidebar toolbox shown for all articles. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  1. We are going way off-topic. I don't think this is the right page to discuss about a Global toolbox element to hide images. A discussion about universal toggle for hiding images is not even related to the article about Muhammad, and is verily out of topic here.

    Others who are not interested in "Muhammad" but might have taken interest in the new proposal about universal toggle for images, will miss out on an opportunity to comment on this issue.

    This should be discussed in a separate RfC. This is not the right place.

  2. Anyway, I disagree. This step would be antithetical to the spirit of Undue weight and WP:NPOV (will implicitly reflect a particular POV). Unjustified, irrational demands predicated on religious precepts, is not worth any modification on Wikipedia which will eventually seem like a reinforcement of self-censorship. That cannot be the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not encourage censorship in anyway.

    Moreover, I understand that some Muslims may be offended by these images of Muhammad just as some Jews maybe offended by images of swastika or an article about holocaust denial, Some may find the pertinent images in cunnilingus to be unnecessary.

    Again, we should also consider those who might find an "image toggle" to be disruptive or unnecessary.

    The right question is should there be any negotiation about the clearly stated policies of wikipedia? (More on this here)

    And if somebody is sincerely offended by seeing those images, then I should say there are ways to solve this issue, without this universal "image toggle" or any further (probably disruptive) modifications on wikipedia.

    The undeniable fact is, the onus of avoiding/hiding (purportedly) offensive content/images based on religious tenets, does not fall on the editors or policy-makers of Wikipedia, the onus of taking all necessary steps to avoid those images is on the individual who is reading Wikipedia.

    Thus an "image toggle" is potentially disruptive and also utterly redundant.

    And this "image toggle" will inevitably draw undue weight to the controversial side of arguments because a permanent image-toggle in the left-hand toolbar as an option to hide images, will unavoidably reflect a specific point of view and can be seen as impetus for self-censorship from Wikipedia itself. That will not be helpful. Brendon is here 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree. While the Muhammad article is the one that presents the most problems and urgently needs a solution, there are other articles containing images that some may find objectionable. Rather than putting hatnotes on individual articles, I'm coming round to the view that all articles should have a button saying 'click here to view this article without images'. That would be perfectly neutral, and I can't see how anyone could reasonable consider it 'censorship'. Banning the use of certain images would be censorship. Simply allowing readers the option of not seeing them is not. Robofish ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature. The slippery slope argument is primarily what this discussion is about. If we cave to the demands on one religion, then we'll need to add a hatnote on every article that might have content which is offensive to any other sufficiently large group of people. See my demonstrative (and somewhat sarcastic) proposal below. I would support a gadget which could be selectively enabled to hide images, or even hide only images that have been categorized as "potentially offensive", as this is a tool that is invisible to those who are not interested in it (i.e. most readers). A hatnote is visible to everyone, and only draws unnecessary attention to the "controversy" by catering to the demands of a minority of readers. I think the NOTCENSORED argument also applies to how easy we make it for users to self-censor and how intrusive the self-censoring interface is for regular readers who don't want to self-censor. This is one reason why so many editors (including myself) are invoking NOTCENSORED as a relevant policy. —SW—  yak 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC) reply
"Yes, but giving readers the option to not see images should not interrupt (or even be visible to) users who don't want or care about such a feature." - right, I concur. But that option already exists. Click here. Brendon is here 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree, and in fact suggested this solution independently above. I think it would work best if it allowed the user to toggle between an "images shown mode" and "no images mode" that would be remembered using cookies whether or not they're logged in. This would be useful for conserving bandwidth as well as dealing with visual sensitivities, and would avert discussions over which articles deserve such a notice. However, I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion since I don't think Muslims are offended by viewing the content but rather by our publication of it. Dcoetzee 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree. This seems to be an eminently sensible neutral solution and adds additional convenience. It should apply to all articles until further notice (or possibly till the end of the session or cookie expiry for non-logged-in users), Preferably, there would be suppression of future downloads as well as immediate suppression of display, which would save bandwidth and improve response times as well as having the potential to avoid triggering external filtering mechanisms that implement real censorship. It could also serve as a "panic button" for people viewing images that might be inappropriate for passers-by (children, religious fundamentalists, secret police, etc.). Developers should possibly also consider using a tab (like the watch/unwatch tab); it could even be a drop-down "quick preferences" or "temporary preferences" element with show/hide toggles for various features such as images, ToC, categories, links to other languages, etc., but feature creep is a valid concern. -- Boson ( talk) 11:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Now that I think about it, I actually = Oppose a global image toggle for images on the toolbox. It places undue weight on the idea that images should be toggled on and off, while not providing a similar toggle for anything else. By providing such a toggle to "hide all images," while at the same time not providing such a toggle to "hide all text," we are implying that there needs to be more to be hidden for images than text. That is a bias against images, violating NPOV.-- New questions? 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think WP:NPOV applies to features like images, provided the feature applies to all images. We can and must have an opinion on which features we support. Similarly, it would not be an NPOV issue if we were to support suppression of animated images that could cause epileptic fits in some individals. Whether a user's perceived need for a feature results from a religious belief, a brain malfunction, or other disability should probably not concern us if we can implement a feature without unduly affecting other people.-- Boson ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • General Comment Re: Nudity, Censorship, Slippery Slope, Wiki Policy

1. WP:CENSORED or WP:NOTCENSORED as the Basis for Argument: The existence of a barrier, no matter how small is in fact censorship, it cannot be argued that the hatnote is not a form of censorship. However, it is equally indisputable that the censorship of the hatnote actually prevents access to the content. In deciding how to present WP content, because WP is accessible worldwide, holding onto rules as being absolute would likely hurt rather than help the cause of WP as risk of being exposed unexpectedly to certain content, here the image of Muhammad, may deter entire cultures and religions from making contributions. It is immaterial if the images qualify as works of art, while that is certainly grounds for inclusion, it bears no relevance to the issue of implementing a hatnote. The issue of the hatnote being a form a censorship stands alone with respect to whether it is too restrictive.

HOWEVER - The risk of deterring large classes of people from using and contributing to WP when weighed against the minor inconvenience of clicking a mouse, or perhaps a dedicated key, is overwhelming. The hatnote in fact has a powerful potential to REDUCE CENSORSHIP simply by presenting the content in a way that ALL POTENTIAL USERS would feel comfortable accessing and contributing. Indeed, posting an image of Muhammad may make an individual feel he or she is part of a sacrilegious action (for participating in the display of his image) in order to contribute to the page. It logically follows that no one who strictly follows the religion is likely to contribute to the page. If we make the reasonable assumption that religious experts are also often devout followers of the religion, then it should be obvious that by clinging to a superficial definition of censorship regarding the image, we are hypocritically turning a blind eye to the deeper meaning of censorship. The effect of the image on the class of people who bind themselves strictly to their religion is a censorship to their editing participation and access to the written contents, leaving the responsibility of knowledgeable editing in the hands of those who do not hold the same values.

I believe that the hatnote itself serves as important knowledge to readers. Curious researchers would see it and immediately know that the content therein has particular significance, a fact that is often difficult to describe with words alone. In this particular case, it would educate and remind the readers of the seriousness of the content. The knowledge conveyed by the symbolic act of asking the reader to confirm he or she wants to see the content has only recently been made available when research could be done on the computer; it is a new way of communicating knowledge which is encyclopedic appropriate information.

As an aside, I would even suggest that this be used for nude images as a mere mouse click or tap of a dedicated key is likely to encourage parents to allow their children to access WP without risk of any accidental exposure to nudity.

A key point that bears repeating throughout the entirety of this proposition is that NO ENCYCLOPEDIC IS BEING BARRED FROM INCLUSION OR ACCESS

2. Slippery Slope and Wiki Policy: This crossed my mind as well, however, I have not read nor have I been able to come up with how this can be escalated to any level of reasonable concern. The furthest point imaginable, when also considering that WP is a world wide effort, would be if WP expanded the policy to include content that is globally recognized as worthy of a confirmation click. I don't believe that this could even go as far as an age verification because those are completely ineffective deterrents and would be a meaningless inconvenience. The hatnote is nothing more than a confirmation that the reader intends to view the content. Objections to this hatnote are (imo) as silly as objections to the question "are you sure?" And finally, there is little to suggest that this offends the policy of WP policy as no additional restrictions are being placed on the content that can be added. The closer monitoring and better defining of what is appropriate to post is most appropriately viewed as ensuring that only genuine facts that are verifiable and important to subject are included. This is in fact the intent for ALL articles, the accepted proposals make no compromises to WP policy, they are governed by the same rules, but explained specifically as it applies to this issue. I am optimistic that this/these article(s) will set an example of an ideal WP entry.

TLDR Version

1. Displaying Muhammad's image will prevent devout followers from reading and contributing their knowledge to the article. There is no censorship of content, the hatnote is just a mouse click. The value of having more knowledgeable people contribute + the value of open access to all >>>>>>> clicking a mouse. Also, the actual amount of censorship effectuated when there is no option to view without the image >>>>>>> censorship by a confirmation mouse click.
2. Slippery Slope does not apply because there is no where to go. The adopted proposals are not new, just worded to apply specifically to this issue, WP policy has not changed. AwayEnter ( talk) 06:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images/Question_1b&oldid=1142569808"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE