![]() | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
Wikiproject Graphical content problem deals with article images that may be disturbing to some viewers. The scope of this WikiProject is to define how such images are to appear on article pages and implement any solutions. For example, images such as Image:Hst sts82.jpg may be placed within warning templates such as {{ DisturbingImage}} to provide viewers a warning that the image may disturbe some viewers.
I personally do not care either way. I am neither excited or disgusted by images of sexual content. I have seen a good share of violence so pictures of "damaged" corpses do not cause me blood presure problems either. Ill be redesigning the template. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
For parties who cant bear seeing such images an earlier project I proposed (which wasn't rejected nor accepted) can be useful. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC) I believe this image would be censored in any public TV viewing at even the most liberal places. But I think that's wrong. You should not hide "facts", however I also believe we should respect peoples right to read about information without being "disturbed" by the images. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It has came to my attention that on certain pages images that may be disturbing to some viewers appear large in size. I think a policy should be defined on how such images appear on article pages. Viewers should be warned before seeing the image in my opinion. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
{{
DisturbingImage}}
The content of this image may be disturbing or offensive to some viewers. Click on the link below to view this image. |
|
bla |
I propose using this template: Template:DisturbingImage
Usage: {{DisturbingImage|''image filename''|''caption''}}
I am not suggesting censorship but suggesting a way to make sure only users who are not going to faint seeing such images see them. I suggest this template Cat chi? 10:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{
DisturbingImage}}
The content of this image may be disturbing or offensive to some viewers. Click on the link below to view this image. |
|
bla |
While there is nothing wrong with the image above, I don't want to turn this place into a dead person showcase. It was picked randomly.
Cat
chi? 11:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Discussion along these lines has been going on at Autofellatio; you might want to propose this there. Sincerely, Davenbelle 11:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Objective of this project:
Unless you can give an NPOV description of exactly who needs "protecting" from exactly what content, I fail to see how that can be anything other than POV. For example, Nazi images are much more tightly controlled in Germany and France than in the UK. Nudity in TV advertising at all times of the day is common in Demark (apparently), but not in the UK. Also, how does this square with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored? Thryduulf 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=
This shpuld not be seen as censorship, the reader/user can easily click on the "image" to access the actual picture. It does not restrict access but gives info regarding the content. Basiacly, "click at own risk" deal. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't be stupid. By dead people I clearly mean pictures of dead people/dead bodies. You made your case. I shall stop creative thought at once. Cat chi? 09:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
how about:
??? — Davenbelle 10:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Let's not be purposely obtuse and pretend we don't know the general idea here. We have many rules and practices dependent on people's judgment for which it's not possible to decide every exceptional case in advance. There are very common classes of potentially offensive/disturbing images, and there are others that are not so common. We're not talking about removing information here, just avoiding inlining certain images; this is already policy for at least one image. Demi T/ C 07:14, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
There are people and cultures that find the following images offensive, should these be hidden as well?
Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at my proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Option to disable all inline images. Any attempt at all to classify what should be censored (except possibly for some VERY clear-cut cases, and I'm not even sure those exist) is by definition POV and will degenerate into massive debates and edit wars. So the only sensible option is to allow users to see, according to their decision, either all or no inline images. If there's sufficient interest in this proposal, I can write the relevant code. Nickptar 23:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, NPOV is a policy for article content, but I'm seeing it more and more used as an argument for or against certain policy-like practices. Just because making a decision might be hard in certain cases doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted: what's being proposed here is an editorial standard. Would we tolerate gratuitous vulgarity in article text? No, that's bad style--to say the least. So of course we exercise "POV" editorial control over what appears in Wikipedia (and how it appears). Throwing up our hands and saying "Someone will argue over the categorization, so let's not do it" just isn't the answer. Demi T/ C 07:19, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
![]() | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
Wikiproject Graphical content problem deals with article images that may be disturbing to some viewers. The scope of this WikiProject is to define how such images are to appear on article pages and implement any solutions. For example, images such as Image:Hst sts82.jpg may be placed within warning templates such as {{ DisturbingImage}} to provide viewers a warning that the image may disturbe some viewers.
I personally do not care either way. I am neither excited or disgusted by images of sexual content. I have seen a good share of violence so pictures of "damaged" corpses do not cause me blood presure problems either. Ill be redesigning the template. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
For parties who cant bear seeing such images an earlier project I proposed (which wasn't rejected nor accepted) can be useful. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC) I believe this image would be censored in any public TV viewing at even the most liberal places. But I think that's wrong. You should not hide "facts", however I also believe we should respect peoples right to read about information without being "disturbed" by the images. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It has came to my attention that on certain pages images that may be disturbing to some viewers appear large in size. I think a policy should be defined on how such images appear on article pages. Viewers should be warned before seeing the image in my opinion. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
{{
DisturbingImage}}
The content of this image may be disturbing or offensive to some viewers. Click on the link below to view this image. |
|
bla |
I propose using this template: Template:DisturbingImage
Usage: {{DisturbingImage|''image filename''|''caption''}}
I am not suggesting censorship but suggesting a way to make sure only users who are not going to faint seeing such images see them. I suggest this template Cat chi? 10:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{
DisturbingImage}}
The content of this image may be disturbing or offensive to some viewers. Click on the link below to view this image. |
|
bla |
While there is nothing wrong with the image above, I don't want to turn this place into a dead person showcase. It was picked randomly.
Cat
chi? 11:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Discussion along these lines has been going on at Autofellatio; you might want to propose this there. Sincerely, Davenbelle 11:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Objective of this project:
Unless you can give an NPOV description of exactly who needs "protecting" from exactly what content, I fail to see how that can be anything other than POV. For example, Nazi images are much more tightly controlled in Germany and France than in the UK. Nudity in TV advertising at all times of the day is common in Demark (apparently), but not in the UK. Also, how does this square with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored? Thryduulf 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=
This shpuld not be seen as censorship, the reader/user can easily click on the "image" to access the actual picture. It does not restrict access but gives info regarding the content. Basiacly, "click at own risk" deal. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't be stupid. By dead people I clearly mean pictures of dead people/dead bodies. You made your case. I shall stop creative thought at once. Cat chi? 09:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
how about:
??? — Davenbelle 10:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Let's not be purposely obtuse and pretend we don't know the general idea here. We have many rules and practices dependent on people's judgment for which it's not possible to decide every exceptional case in advance. There are very common classes of potentially offensive/disturbing images, and there are others that are not so common. We're not talking about removing information here, just avoiding inlining certain images; this is already policy for at least one image. Demi T/ C 07:14, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
There are people and cultures that find the following images offensive, should these be hidden as well?
Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at my proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Option to disable all inline images. Any attempt at all to classify what should be censored (except possibly for some VERY clear-cut cases, and I'm not even sure those exist) is by definition POV and will degenerate into massive debates and edit wars. So the only sensible option is to allow users to see, according to their decision, either all or no inline images. If there's sufficient interest in this proposal, I can write the relevant code. Nickptar 23:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, NPOV is a policy for article content, but I'm seeing it more and more used as an argument for or against certain policy-like practices. Just because making a decision might be hard in certain cases doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted: what's being proposed here is an editorial standard. Would we tolerate gratuitous vulgarity in article text? No, that's bad style--to say the least. So of course we exercise "POV" editorial control over what appears in Wikipedia (and how it appears). Throwing up our hands and saying "Someone will argue over the categorization, so let's not do it" just isn't the answer. Demi T/ C 07:19, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)