This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In working through this fraught subject with my fellow Wikipedians, I (Herostratus) have come across various counterarguments. I address them here. I have divided them -- and this is strictly my own personal ordering -- into those I have found cogent and those I have not.
I don't have a complete list of which articles are hardcore-only. Such a list is difficult to compile because many of the articles mix references to real-life sexual activity with pornography-film scenarios. These articles need to have their references rigorously vetted and the real-life and pornography aspects separated. But just take one article, Bukkake, which after vetting some of the refs I think is only verifiably notable as a pornography scenario, and which (at this writing) has two images, I note that this article is not hidden away somewhere. It is two clicks away from the general-interest articles Edo Period and 1979 and Flash and Index of Japan-related articles (L) and LGBT history. And it's two clicks away from several articles of likely interest to young people, these being Anime and List of manga magazines and List of webcomics and List of fictional robots and androids and even Flirting (some flirting!). Just saying. Herostratus ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please move this to your user space. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." - WP:ESSAYS I'm not sure if you want people to edit this or not but it does contradict widespread consensus. Cptnono ( talk) 09:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. It's perfectly fine (of course) if editors improve this essay by adding various links, and links to essays and policies that contradict or refute this essay are welcome, and if you want to write an essay "Why WP:HARDCORE sucks" or whatever and link to it that's perfectly OK.
But please, not Help:Options to not see an image. Besides being mostly complete bollocks (and flat-out insulting in a number of places), it's completely out of context to link to it here.
What the page says, basically, is "If you are computer programmer, and you somehow know the file names of all the images that you don't want to see, here's what you can do"
[Redacted: an extended rant ripping Help:Options to not see an image to shreds. It was all true (and funny), but still a rant and not necessarily kind to the editors who worked on that page. It's in the history.] Herostratus ( talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, look. I'm not saying Help:Options to not see an image shouldn't exist. It's a help page, and (although it needs an extensive rewrite) it's possible that the number of people who have found it useful is not necessarily zero, and it belongs in with our other help pages.
But linking to it in this context is basically to say "Hey, here's a practical solution to this problem described in this essay!". And that's not true. And if it's not true, we shouldn't do it. Herostratus ( talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Naturally, it's expected that this page will come under attack. An editor blanked a large part of the first section, and we'll likely see more of this, and I guess it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Again, improvements to the essay are welcome. Creating counter-essays and linking to them from here is welcome. However, hostile and destructive edits are not welcome, not part of way essays are generally handled here at the Wikipedia, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia. I don't go messing with your essays, you know.
I reverted the edit, and if any fair-minded editors (you don't have to agree with the thrust of the essay) want to keep an eye on this page, that'd be welcome. Herostratus ( talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been following the comments on this essay for a while, and I thought I should share my views. I fully agree with the sentiment of this essay, but have to disagree on some minor points. I want to address your three main points that you make.
Jrobinjapan ( talk) 07:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple of responses to some earlier comments. Regarding "I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship." It doesn't just "not necessarily constitute censorship", it absolutely doesn't constitute censorship. Censorship is editorial control by an external entity. When people speak of censorship, they are first of all mainly talking about state censorship. This can take two forms, prior restraint - when the state has a Censor's Office and material cannot legally be published without their OK - or post priori censorship, where you can publish whatever you want but are liable to be arrested afterwards. Obviously this does not apply to the situation we are talking about.
Then there is censorship by non-state entities. In the old days, every American movie had to be approved by the Hays Office, which was set up by the movie studios. The Hays Office wasn't an arm of the state, but without their approval no theater in America would show your movie, and no studio would make if they thought it wouldn't get the OK from the Hays Office. The state wasn't involved, but the state allowed this to happen, even though it was a gross violation of antitrust laws. And in fact the Hays Office was set up to appease the state and head off any possible formal state censorship. (The rating system we have now is a remnant of this system, and like the Hays Office it would absolutely be illegal collusion normally, but special legislation has been passed to allow this.) The Comics Code is a similar example.
Then there are weaker forms of external control, like informal censorship, local censorship, and boycotts. If all the bookstores in my county refuse to carry works by Trotsky, that could - maybe - be seen as in informal form of censorship, even though there's no overt collusion. If my public library refused to carry works by Trotsky for political reasons, that is arguably censorship (the library is an arm of the state); but if they don't carry them just because no one wants them, it's not. Intent would be key in this case. Then boycotts - if an organized group agitates for people not to buy my newspaper unless it drops the "Trotsky Says" column, that's an outside entity trying to influence editorial content. It's debatable whether any of these rise to the level of "censorship", and it partly depends on the effectiveness of the effor - if I can get my Trotsky in the next county or in the next town's library, can we really say that censorship is in effect.
But if an individual bookstore or theater or whatever decides they don't want to sell a given work, that's not censorship. If I decide not to carry the "Trotsky Says" column in my newspaper, that's not censorship. That's just editoral judgement. Because there is no outside entity exercising control.
And that is the situation we have here. We are not talking about censorship here. Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they "censored"? Of course not. They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say "The Brittanica is censored". The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they have) is censored, and that's totally different, and to say "The Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored, and the Brittanica is censored, and the two conditions are similar enough that we can use the same word" is silly.
In fact, our policy "Wikipedia is not censored" is badly misnamed. (In a narrow sense, the Wikipedia is censored, because the State of Florida won't let use host certain material - child porn, direct incitements to crime, deliberate fraud. There's no prior restraint (no Censor's Office) but we'd be liable to being shut down and whoever is legally responsible to arrest. We can host libel, but are liable to civil action in that case, which the state allows, so effectively we are censored from that too. (Not that we want to host any of these things, of course.)
But WP:NOTCENSORED isn't talking about that. It's about editorial control. The core sentence of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is the last: "...'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content", so it really should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia contains 'objectionable' content" or, since it's part of WP:NOT, maybe "Wikipedia is not edited to remove 'objectionable' content" or something like that. And the shortcut could be WP:OBJECTIONABLE. It's a little less concise, but on the other hand more accurate. Maybe I'll bring this up. Herostratus ( talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As to the "misogynist" point - another editor brought this up also. The images are accurate (I think), but so? They just accurately portray misogyny. That "...there are many women who do not find it degrading" is probably true, and it depends on the individual picture. One could argue whether (some of) the images are misogynist in intent or effect, and there's no true right answer, I guess, but at least a reasonably strong argument could be made that they are (and citations to this effect could be included).
However, the argument is valuable from a political perspective. Most Wikipedian's don't have children (see chart in a section above) and many of these (and some that do) don't give a rat's ass about kids. (I just recently saw the following statement on an editor's talk page - actually, Cptnono who has commented here - "The children are of no concern to me", and you see that from time to time (although Cptnono's brutal frankness is unusually... bracing).
After all, young people can't vote, don't make big donations, don't edit encyclopedias that much (an those that do are self-selected cohort of unusual characteristics), and I guess from a Ayn Rand type perspective (and I think we have a high percentage of libertarians and Randians and so forth here, relative to the general population) I suppose that children, being weak, are actively contemptible.
But with women it's different. There are so many of them, for one thing - they're everywhere nowadays, doubtless to the dismay of some - and they won't necessarily shut up about this stuff (again, to the dismay...). And they vote, and write letters, and edit encyclopedias, and some of them are right there in your classroom or office or even your home. In short, they're a lot harder to blow off.
And actually I think a lot of this is backlash to that: "One of you people may have gotten that internship/promotion/plum assignment/A+ grade/etc that rightfully belongs to my kind of people, but at the end of the day you're still just meat, OK?" I can't prove this, but you have to wonder. And I don't like it very much. Herostratus ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for the disclaimer to be amended to address a valid point here. Wikipedia_talk:Content_disclaimer#Edit_request:_mention_sexuality_explicitly Gigs ( talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I rather wish you hadn't used the wording that you did in your proposal there (which was to add "sexual acts" to the list.) To explain why I think this, consider two images:
(Sorry, I see that Image B is on the "bad image list" - which also tells us something I think - and the readier will have to click the link to see it.)
I think that most people, on seeing the term "sexual acts", will be put in mind of Image A. But that is not what I'm talking about in this essay, I am talking about Image B and like images.
Comparing Image A to Image B in the context of the three main points raised in the essay, I think that:
In addition, Image B does not even portray a "sexual act", really. After thoroughly vetting the references at Bukkake, I determined that there is no reliable source indicating that people engage in this activity voluntarily in real life at all, especially in heterosexual groups. So it is depicting an image that effectively occurs only in fiction, and so we are looking at actors or models or imaginary persons. I don't think that performances of actors following a script on a sound stage are really "sexual acts" in the usual sense, any more than the activities of an actor playing Superman on a sound stage are really "heroic acts".
(N.B.: though I have used Bukkake throughout in the examples, there are several other articles and images to which all this applies.)
So your proposed addition to the disclaimer doesn't really address the issue raised in that section of the essay, and I wouldn't support making any significant change to that section if your proposed addition is adopted.
Now Gigs, let me ask you again: what is your actual attitude to the essay? I know you don't like the third main point, but what about the first two points - are you in general agreement, or not? Herostratus ( talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is another way this topic can be approached. We have very strong policies that tell us that our content should reflect coverage in the best, most reputable sources, and exclude original research. That is understood as a basic principle of Wikipedia. No one appears to have any problem with this. Of course we sometimes get editors arguing that most reliable sources are biased, prejudiced, or motivated by ideological hostility towards whatever person or topic has taken their fancy, but on the whole we give such editors short shrift. We point them to NPOV policy, which calls upon us to represent viewpoints in proportion to their published prevalence in reliable sources.
How we approach the task of illustrating our articles should, in principle, be no different. We should take our cues on how to illustrate our work from the sources we cite in our article. If our illustration practice differs sharply from that in the cited sources, then we are not reflecting our sources. It is fully analogous to presenting an argument that is not present in the sources.
Now, in my experience reliable published sources discussing hardcore pornography do not include illustrations. We don't need to ask why they take that editorial decision, just like we don't need to ask why all our sources are agreed about the validity of a scientific argument. But we should note the fact.
I wrote and researched Creampie (sexual act). None of the sources I cited had a picture of a creampie; not a drawing, not a photograph. This is very different from an article like sexual positions, where reliably published sex manuals do present illustrations (usually drawings) of sexual positions, or medical textbooks, which include high-quality anatomical photographs of all parts of the human body.
If someone argues that all these reliable sources eschewing illustrations of things like bukkake, creampies, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) or goatse are biased and prejudiced, and points to NOTCENSORED, we should give them the same answer that we give editors who argue that the writing in all reliable sources is biased.
That is not what happens at present. NOTCENSORED trumps everything, and no one even thinks of consulting published sources to help decide whether or not to include a given image. In my view, that is a problem. -- JN 466 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, a few more points. It's difficult to get this across because of rampant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The typical Wikipedia editor is a childless single young male, and this is also (one supposes) the target demographic for pornography. Note the relative paucity of women, people with children, and mature people. Possibly at least partly a vicious cycle, as the frat-boy atmosphere that looks with favor on this sort of thing would tend to drive these people away. Herostratus ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see that you have given this topic a lot of thought, and have sincere and genuine concern for what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You've even gone to the trouble of documenting and commenting on what you anticipate most of the disagreement with your position will be.
As I worked to try to do something similar to this, with roughly the same motivations in 2006 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines I can sympathize with your position a great deal.
I think you are going about it the wrong way.
To start with you called the project "Wikipedia:Hardcore images" -- but then, immediately say "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and then immediately try to define with "Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase".
Of course, you've jumped immediately from "Hardcore Images" to "Hardcore Pornography" in one fell swoop.
The first issue is that what we are talking about here really is self-censorship. What images do we wish to choose to leave out of Wikipedia for various reasons? That kind of voluntary self-censorship and restraint do we as a community desire out of the interest of keeping Wikipedia on the goal of being an encyclopedia, rather than other things?
The images that we choose to not be in Wikipedia cold vary broadly, and are not limited to what you call "pornography". That potentially includes images that do or could offend readers for wide variety of prospective reasons. It could challenge their views of morality or ethics, their political views, their religious views, or any number of other aspects of their life. "Pornography" frankly, is lowest on the list of possible reasons. Certainly graphics violence such as rape and murder would be worse. Blasphemy would be worse.
Next -- You use the term Pornography as if we all agree or understand the definition. You give a definition, and tell us that it is "well-defined". Of course we all use the same definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used in Miller vs California. That is "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." In fact, the only standard we have all (in the U.S.) agreed upon on for that is the Miller Test. That is a convenient standard, since Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida, and bound by Florida state and U.S. federal laws (and hence, the Miller test.)
So, us self-censoring the broad range of potentially offense images on Wikipedia to focus only on "Pornography featuring sexual penetration and other sexuality explicit acts". "Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic" is 'not okay.
The narrowing of your definition from the legal standard (Miller test) that we all agree on, to a narrower standard that is extremely subjective, and based on a specific list of content -- rather than on the context that a given image is used -- is not acceptable. Not at all. Not a little bit.
Using such a prospective subjective standard, we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator. (and given a world with religions that require their women to be completely covered from head to toe) that common denominator is pretty low.)
One persons subjective opinion may be that because they personally find an image to be "erotic" or "arousing" in nature, that is is therefore "pornography" will not fly on Wikipedia.
An image that is directly related to the topic of the article it is in and illustrates the topic well (accurately) and benefits the article from an educational or encylopedic perspective should, as long it does not violate the law, be allowed in an article in Wikipedia. We should not give strong consideration to whether an image will be controversial, or whether it will offend "some" people, or whether "children" might see it. When given a choice of two or more images for an article that are equally good, of course, choosing an image that is less likely to offend or be controversial should be done.
A good example of this would be the article on sexual intercourse showing a real picture of a male and female (or more controversially, but just as appropriately two males having sexual intercourse.) Such photos would not inherently be pornography (although I suspect you would insist otherwise.) If used in the context of this encyclopedia, accurate, and tasteful. Showing a naked body is not erotica or pornography in an educational context. Showing one of the most common biological processes that we as humans experience is not pornography either. Yes, it could be "controversial". It could be controversial because the man is black and the woman is white. It could be controversial because the image *does not* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the image *does* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the man is "old" and the woman looks very "young". It could be controversial because it is two men. It could be controversial because the woman is on top, and not in the missionary position. It could be controversial because they are not married. It could be controversial because they *are* married, but not to one another. It could be controversial because they are married to one another, but they were having coitus for the benefit of the photo, and not to conceive children. There are numerous other reasons (as diverse as the diversity of humanity interacts with politics, religion and science.)
We at Wikipedia try to cut through all of that and warn people ahead of time that they could see controversial things in Wikipedia. We try to focus on our goal. What is our goal? Do we as editors know or remember that? Open and free access to the sum of human knowledge?
If we were in China, or Russia, we would have to accept the censorship (of all types of content, not just prospective erotic content), limiting that vision of "open and free and human knowledge" to some degree that was acceptable within those cultures and political structures. We do face the political reality and limitations of where Wikipedia *is* located. We do not have to limit ourselves based fear of controversy or bad public relations.
Out goal is to accumulate all of human knowledge and make it free and easily accessible. To stay on that task, we can't limit ourselves to trying to please and appease the specific moral tenets of every (or most, or the largest) religious groups.
You have gone to great lengths to pose this argument as something other than about censorship. But what it really is, at it's core, is an attempt to set up guidelines for Wikipedia editors to self-censor images that you or others subjectively describe as "Pornography".
To address your three main points:
You said: "I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill."
Well, I applaud you! I doubt many people would disagree with your words, and share your good-hearted intent -- as I do. We want to tell the true story of sexuality and sexual behavior, and not a false story. We want the capability to boldy document and describe human sexual behavior accurately, and in proper perspective. We don't wish to be limited by moralistic and life sheltered individuals who oppose any form of acknowledgment that sexuality exists. We should have no problem with any type of explicit sexual images within Wikipedia, as long as it is educational, and on the specific topic, and benefits the article by helping people to understand that topic better. As long as we are careful to make sure that those images are not, in fact, obscene, and are valuable to the article, that should be enough. Atom ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Your last sentence seems more abstract. Of course we adults should all have s sense of responsibility. There are certainly a set of images which don't really have a need to be on Wikipedia. The ones of those that are sexually explicit should be the least of our concerns. Images that display graphic violence are much more offensive and damaging to all involved. Pictures of human skin are just that.
In my view the primary thing we should avoid is people learning about sexuality (which happens throughout the human lifespan) getting an unrealistic idea about sexuality. The problem with pornography in general, is that the people involved and the frequency of the acts involved are not representative of most people, or most human behavior. As for women being degraded for amusement, as a feminist, of course I agree they should be avoided, generally speaking. I think that accurately documenting history and how people have been misogynistic in the past is the best way to combat it in the future. So, for instance, although I abhor the sexual act now called Bukkake, documenting that a sex act intentionally intended to humiliate and degrade women exists and existed is important. That said, I am not sure how people learning that nudity is normal and healthy is connected to degrading women. Clearly images and artwork of human nudity abound in normal day to day life. Sadomasochistic images of non-consensual rape and bondage do not abound, and I can't see that such an image has a useful place within Wikipedia.
Part of the issue is moralists and ultra conservative religious types who classify anything that causes them or anyone else to be sexual aroused to be immoral, and therefore, pornography, and therefore, not useful regardless of any other context that image might have. What we can agree on, I think, is that we should never add an image to Wikipedia with the specific intent of causing sexual arousal. An image should be added to an article solely because it adds to the understanding of the specific topic of that article. If an image works well to help an article be understood, but also happens to be found to be arousing by some person, that is a personal issue, and not incorrect editing within Wikipedia. Otherwise, something as simple as an image of Mary Jane shoes would be omitted.
What I dislike the most about what you have written is your use of the term "hardcore pornography" and "pornography" as if the terms were clear and we all understood and agreed on what those terms meant. In fact, they are relative terms, and one image can be wholly appropriate in one context, and pornographic in a different context. The terms "sexually explicit" and "obscene" are better defined individually and within the law and would be more useful to use. As we could lay down 100 sexually explicit images on the table, and sort them by our subjective opinion of how graphic they are, from very low to very high, and try to draw a line on where the images were "too sexually explicit" for Wikipedia, you and I, (and many others) would likely agree that image #1 was fine for Wikipedia, and image #100 was to explicit for Wikipedia, and probably nothing else -- certainly not on where the line should be. For any kind of proposal on sexually explicit images within Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to be as objective as possible, and push away subjective criteria. As the term "pornography" itself is entirely subjective, it is not a term that will ever be useful for this purpose. The other factor is that the context in how an image is used is important. Without the context, there is no way to classify an image as being anything other than sexually explicit. And there is nothing wrong with something being sexually explicit. Atom ( talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit is exactly why I proposed userfying this months ago. [1] HS is not allowing others to contribute so this belongs in their user space. Cptnono ( talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Herostratus; Hostile edits to essays are not welcome. Write your own essay." I'm confused. This project is in user space. The edits I made I felt were positive and constructive, addressing the issues discussed while removing the feel that it was just one persons personal opinion. Are you trying to say that you own the article and no changes can me made except by you, or with your approval? If you want to move this to your talk page, then please feel free to express yourself. But in a project space it belongs to all of Wikipedia.
Also, I am not sure why you would consider those edits to be "hostile". I will try another edit that is more gentle. I hope that it does not step on your toes. Atom ( talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy."
If the issue were black and white, then there would be people for and people against. Non of us seem to be, in fact, for censoring Wikipedia. We all, for the most part, seem to be against images that are not appropriate for a given article. By policy, Wikipedia is neutral on images that have explicit sexuality. If the image is appropriate for the topic of an article, it may be acceptable. If the image is not appropriate for the topic of an article, then it may not be acceptable. The term used in this essay, hardcore pornography is subjective, and is used in the context by the primary essayist to mean "sexually explicit images that I don't like". As every editor can not like an image for their own personal reasons, it is not a term that can be useful to us. Perhaps some editors would like life to be easier, and have a very easy rule that no sexually explicit images may be used in Wikipedia. That is, however, not in alignment with current Wikipedia policy. To succeed in limiting images that are not in the best interests of WIkipedia, and yet not censor, we need objective criteria. This means there can be no hard and fast rule, that each and every image must be judged by the editors of a given article as to whether the image benefits an article or not. Whether the image is on topic or not is objective. Whether the image is sexually explicit or not is not a factor. Whether the activity and the image truly represent real life (versus fantasy/erotica/entertainment) seems to be a valid argument. Other objective and more concrete criteria could and should be proposed. But, the first thing that should go in this essay is the term hardcore pornography. I don't see any easy way to discuss a subjective term that varies bt context, generally in an objective and concrete way. Atom ( talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So per this, do you want this, Herostratus? I can make Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Hardcore images with:
Only users approved by Herostratus ( talk · contribs) may edit this page. |
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are some problems with that template:
Look, here's an an example - the essay WP:COMPREHENSIVE. I don't agree with this essay at all, and in fact consider it loathsomely amoral (in fact its original title was "Wikipedia is amoral", as if this is something to be proud of). So should I go over there and weaken the language, intertwine arguments against the thrust of the essay into the essay text, rewrite or remove sections of text that make their argument too effectively, add quotations refuting the existing quotations in that section, and just generally seek to destroy the essay?
Of course not. Instead, I could write my own essay and add a link to at the bottom of WP:COMPREHENSIVE. And that's all I can do. How many times do I have to say this?
(Of course, I could correct grammatical errors and so forth in WP:COMPREHENSIVE or, if for some reason I wanted to, make other changes which improved the essay and made its arguments more cogent and compelling. However, even for that - since I hate the essay and openly say so, my motivation would (properly) be automatically in question and my edits would (properly) be subject to an extreme level of scrutiny from people friendly to the essay, and it probably just would not be a good idea for me to edit it at all.)
OK? Herostratus ( talk) 20:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be working at cross-purposes here, so I've asked for mediation, here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. Herostratus ( talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is no need for mediation. If this is a personal opinion/essay offered on your user space, then more power to you. Please express yourself on the topic. Others should not interfere. If it goes back to main space, and it a vehicle for censorship then you will need to let all editors participate and express their viewpoints.
I would then work with editors, including those I don't agree with, in building policies to give us clearer guidelines. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality for where I tried to do this in 2005.) Certainly it should be clear to you that building an essay to further your cause to censor and remove all sexually explicit images in Wikipedia has very little chance of succeeding. That being the case, how can this debate result in constructive and positive changes to Wikipedia that limit the scope of offensive images (of all types -- not just sexuality) and give all future editors a tool so that there is less bickering and time wasted constantly debating image appropriateness? Atom ( talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Atom: Essays express points of view. They can be, if necessary, renamed so they do not appear to be the "be-all and end all" on a particular topic area but it is OK for them to have a particular view. If you disagree with the point of view expressed.... then rename the essay and write one that has the point of view that you think is correct. This is an essay, not a policy page. You can write a competing one that makes a different point but you should not try to turn what it says inside out. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the userfication of this essay. It is an important essay, representing an important perspective, and is the sort of essay which I think is consistent with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. I encourage Herostratus to avoid language which might be incorrectly construed as ownership of the essay, and I encourage those who disagree with the essay to either write their own essay or, if you agree with the thrust of the essay but would like to reword some parts of it, to work thoughtfully here on the talk page and through careful and compromise-driven editing to the essay itself to improve the arguments that it makes.
I hope there is no reason for this to spin out of control into an argument that will end up in front of ArbCom. My reversion here should not be regarded as a dictate or pronouncement of any kind, and if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process (and I will !vote against doing so).-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In working through this fraught subject with my fellow Wikipedians, I (Herostratus) have come across various counterarguments. I address them here. I have divided them -- and this is strictly my own personal ordering -- into those I have found cogent and those I have not.
I don't have a complete list of which articles are hardcore-only. Such a list is difficult to compile because many of the articles mix references to real-life sexual activity with pornography-film scenarios. These articles need to have their references rigorously vetted and the real-life and pornography aspects separated. But just take one article, Bukkake, which after vetting some of the refs I think is only verifiably notable as a pornography scenario, and which (at this writing) has two images, I note that this article is not hidden away somewhere. It is two clicks away from the general-interest articles Edo Period and 1979 and Flash and Index of Japan-related articles (L) and LGBT history. And it's two clicks away from several articles of likely interest to young people, these being Anime and List of manga magazines and List of webcomics and List of fictional robots and androids and even Flirting (some flirting!). Just saying. Herostratus ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please move this to your user space. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." - WP:ESSAYS I'm not sure if you want people to edit this or not but it does contradict widespread consensus. Cptnono ( talk) 09:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. It's perfectly fine (of course) if editors improve this essay by adding various links, and links to essays and policies that contradict or refute this essay are welcome, and if you want to write an essay "Why WP:HARDCORE sucks" or whatever and link to it that's perfectly OK.
But please, not Help:Options to not see an image. Besides being mostly complete bollocks (and flat-out insulting in a number of places), it's completely out of context to link to it here.
What the page says, basically, is "If you are computer programmer, and you somehow know the file names of all the images that you don't want to see, here's what you can do"
[Redacted: an extended rant ripping Help:Options to not see an image to shreds. It was all true (and funny), but still a rant and not necessarily kind to the editors who worked on that page. It's in the history.] Herostratus ( talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, look. I'm not saying Help:Options to not see an image shouldn't exist. It's a help page, and (although it needs an extensive rewrite) it's possible that the number of people who have found it useful is not necessarily zero, and it belongs in with our other help pages.
But linking to it in this context is basically to say "Hey, here's a practical solution to this problem described in this essay!". And that's not true. And if it's not true, we shouldn't do it. Herostratus ( talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Naturally, it's expected that this page will come under attack. An editor blanked a large part of the first section, and we'll likely see more of this, and I guess it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Again, improvements to the essay are welcome. Creating counter-essays and linking to them from here is welcome. However, hostile and destructive edits are not welcome, not part of way essays are generally handled here at the Wikipedia, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia. I don't go messing with your essays, you know.
I reverted the edit, and if any fair-minded editors (you don't have to agree with the thrust of the essay) want to keep an eye on this page, that'd be welcome. Herostratus ( talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been following the comments on this essay for a while, and I thought I should share my views. I fully agree with the sentiment of this essay, but have to disagree on some minor points. I want to address your three main points that you make.
Jrobinjapan ( talk) 07:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple of responses to some earlier comments. Regarding "I think most people living in free societies abhor censorship in any form, I don't think what you are suggesting necessarily constitutes censorship." It doesn't just "not necessarily constitute censorship", it absolutely doesn't constitute censorship. Censorship is editorial control by an external entity. When people speak of censorship, they are first of all mainly talking about state censorship. This can take two forms, prior restraint - when the state has a Censor's Office and material cannot legally be published without their OK - or post priori censorship, where you can publish whatever you want but are liable to be arrested afterwards. Obviously this does not apply to the situation we are talking about.
Then there is censorship by non-state entities. In the old days, every American movie had to be approved by the Hays Office, which was set up by the movie studios. The Hays Office wasn't an arm of the state, but without their approval no theater in America would show your movie, and no studio would make if they thought it wouldn't get the OK from the Hays Office. The state wasn't involved, but the state allowed this to happen, even though it was a gross violation of antitrust laws. And in fact the Hays Office was set up to appease the state and head off any possible formal state censorship. (The rating system we have now is a remnant of this system, and like the Hays Office it would absolutely be illegal collusion normally, but special legislation has been passed to allow this.) The Comics Code is a similar example.
Then there are weaker forms of external control, like informal censorship, local censorship, and boycotts. If all the bookstores in my county refuse to carry works by Trotsky, that could - maybe - be seen as in informal form of censorship, even though there's no overt collusion. If my public library refused to carry works by Trotsky for political reasons, that is arguably censorship (the library is an arm of the state); but if they don't carry them just because no one wants them, it's not. Intent would be key in this case. Then boycotts - if an organized group agitates for people not to buy my newspaper unless it drops the "Trotsky Says" column, that's an outside entity trying to influence editorial content. It's debatable whether any of these rise to the level of "censorship", and it partly depends on the effectiveness of the effor - if I can get my Trotsky in the next county or in the next town's library, can we really say that censorship is in effect.
But if an individual bookstore or theater or whatever decides they don't want to sell a given work, that's not censorship. If I decide not to carry the "Trotsky Says" column in my newspaper, that's not censorship. That's just editoral judgement. Because there is no outside entity exercising control.
And that is the situation we have here. We are not talking about censorship here. Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they "censored"? Of course not. They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say "The Brittanica is censored". The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they have) is censored, and that's totally different, and to say "The Great Chinese Encyclopedia is censored, and the Brittanica is censored, and the two conditions are similar enough that we can use the same word" is silly.
In fact, our policy "Wikipedia is not censored" is badly misnamed. (In a narrow sense, the Wikipedia is censored, because the State of Florida won't let use host certain material - child porn, direct incitements to crime, deliberate fraud. There's no prior restraint (no Censor's Office) but we'd be liable to being shut down and whoever is legally responsible to arrest. We can host libel, but are liable to civil action in that case, which the state allows, so effectively we are censored from that too. (Not that we want to host any of these things, of course.)
But WP:NOTCENSORED isn't talking about that. It's about editorial control. The core sentence of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is the last: "...'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content", so it really should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia contains 'objectionable' content" or, since it's part of WP:NOT, maybe "Wikipedia is not edited to remove 'objectionable' content" or something like that. And the shortcut could be WP:OBJECTIONABLE. It's a little less concise, but on the other hand more accurate. Maybe I'll bring this up. Herostratus ( talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As to the "misogynist" point - another editor brought this up also. The images are accurate (I think), but so? They just accurately portray misogyny. That "...there are many women who do not find it degrading" is probably true, and it depends on the individual picture. One could argue whether (some of) the images are misogynist in intent or effect, and there's no true right answer, I guess, but at least a reasonably strong argument could be made that they are (and citations to this effect could be included).
However, the argument is valuable from a political perspective. Most Wikipedian's don't have children (see chart in a section above) and many of these (and some that do) don't give a rat's ass about kids. (I just recently saw the following statement on an editor's talk page - actually, Cptnono who has commented here - "The children are of no concern to me", and you see that from time to time (although Cptnono's brutal frankness is unusually... bracing).
After all, young people can't vote, don't make big donations, don't edit encyclopedias that much (an those that do are self-selected cohort of unusual characteristics), and I guess from a Ayn Rand type perspective (and I think we have a high percentage of libertarians and Randians and so forth here, relative to the general population) I suppose that children, being weak, are actively contemptible.
But with women it's different. There are so many of them, for one thing - they're everywhere nowadays, doubtless to the dismay of some - and they won't necessarily shut up about this stuff (again, to the dismay...). And they vote, and write letters, and edit encyclopedias, and some of them are right there in your classroom or office or even your home. In short, they're a lot harder to blow off.
And actually I think a lot of this is backlash to that: "One of you people may have gotten that internship/promotion/plum assignment/A+ grade/etc that rightfully belongs to my kind of people, but at the end of the day you're still just meat, OK?" I can't prove this, but you have to wonder. And I don't like it very much. Herostratus ( talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for the disclaimer to be amended to address a valid point here. Wikipedia_talk:Content_disclaimer#Edit_request:_mention_sexuality_explicitly Gigs ( talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I rather wish you hadn't used the wording that you did in your proposal there (which was to add "sexual acts" to the list.) To explain why I think this, consider two images:
(Sorry, I see that Image B is on the "bad image list" - which also tells us something I think - and the readier will have to click the link to see it.)
I think that most people, on seeing the term "sexual acts", will be put in mind of Image A. But that is not what I'm talking about in this essay, I am talking about Image B and like images.
Comparing Image A to Image B in the context of the three main points raised in the essay, I think that:
In addition, Image B does not even portray a "sexual act", really. After thoroughly vetting the references at Bukkake, I determined that there is no reliable source indicating that people engage in this activity voluntarily in real life at all, especially in heterosexual groups. So it is depicting an image that effectively occurs only in fiction, and so we are looking at actors or models or imaginary persons. I don't think that performances of actors following a script on a sound stage are really "sexual acts" in the usual sense, any more than the activities of an actor playing Superman on a sound stage are really "heroic acts".
(N.B.: though I have used Bukkake throughout in the examples, there are several other articles and images to which all this applies.)
So your proposed addition to the disclaimer doesn't really address the issue raised in that section of the essay, and I wouldn't support making any significant change to that section if your proposed addition is adopted.
Now Gigs, let me ask you again: what is your actual attitude to the essay? I know you don't like the third main point, but what about the first two points - are you in general agreement, or not? Herostratus ( talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is another way this topic can be approached. We have very strong policies that tell us that our content should reflect coverage in the best, most reputable sources, and exclude original research. That is understood as a basic principle of Wikipedia. No one appears to have any problem with this. Of course we sometimes get editors arguing that most reliable sources are biased, prejudiced, or motivated by ideological hostility towards whatever person or topic has taken their fancy, but on the whole we give such editors short shrift. We point them to NPOV policy, which calls upon us to represent viewpoints in proportion to their published prevalence in reliable sources.
How we approach the task of illustrating our articles should, in principle, be no different. We should take our cues on how to illustrate our work from the sources we cite in our article. If our illustration practice differs sharply from that in the cited sources, then we are not reflecting our sources. It is fully analogous to presenting an argument that is not present in the sources.
Now, in my experience reliable published sources discussing hardcore pornography do not include illustrations. We don't need to ask why they take that editorial decision, just like we don't need to ask why all our sources are agreed about the validity of a scientific argument. But we should note the fact.
I wrote and researched Creampie (sexual act). None of the sources I cited had a picture of a creampie; not a drawing, not a photograph. This is very different from an article like sexual positions, where reliably published sex manuals do present illustrations (usually drawings) of sexual positions, or medical textbooks, which include high-quality anatomical photographs of all parts of the human body.
If someone argues that all these reliable sources eschewing illustrations of things like bukkake, creampies, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) or goatse are biased and prejudiced, and points to NOTCENSORED, we should give them the same answer that we give editors who argue that the writing in all reliable sources is biased.
That is not what happens at present. NOTCENSORED trumps everything, and no one even thinks of consulting published sources to help decide whether or not to include a given image. In my view, that is a problem. -- JN 466 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, a few more points. It's difficult to get this across because of rampant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The typical Wikipedia editor is a childless single young male, and this is also (one supposes) the target demographic for pornography. Note the relative paucity of women, people with children, and mature people. Possibly at least partly a vicious cycle, as the frat-boy atmosphere that looks with favor on this sort of thing would tend to drive these people away. Herostratus ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see that you have given this topic a lot of thought, and have sincere and genuine concern for what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You've even gone to the trouble of documenting and commenting on what you anticipate most of the disagreement with your position will be.
As I worked to try to do something similar to this, with roughly the same motivations in 2006 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines I can sympathize with your position a great deal.
I think you are going about it the wrong way.
To start with you called the project "Wikipedia:Hardcore images" -- but then, immediately say "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" and then immediately try to define with "Hardcore pornography" is a fairly well-defined phrase".
Of course, you've jumped immediately from "Hardcore Images" to "Hardcore Pornography" in one fell swoop.
The first issue is that what we are talking about here really is self-censorship. What images do we wish to choose to leave out of Wikipedia for various reasons? That kind of voluntary self-censorship and restraint do we as a community desire out of the interest of keeping Wikipedia on the goal of being an encyclopedia, rather than other things?
The images that we choose to not be in Wikipedia cold vary broadly, and are not limited to what you call "pornography". That potentially includes images that do or could offend readers for wide variety of prospective reasons. It could challenge their views of morality or ethics, their political views, their religious views, or any number of other aspects of their life. "Pornography" frankly, is lowest on the list of possible reasons. Certainly graphics violence such as rape and murder would be worse. Blasphemy would be worse.
Next -- You use the term Pornography as if we all agree or understand the definition. You give a definition, and tell us that it is "well-defined". Of course we all use the same definition that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used in Miller vs California. That is "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." In fact, the only standard we have all (in the U.S.) agreed upon on for that is the Miller Test. That is a convenient standard, since Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida, and bound by Florida state and U.S. federal laws (and hence, the Miller test.)
So, us self-censoring the broad range of potentially offense images on Wikipedia to focus only on "Pornography featuring sexual penetration and other sexuality explicit acts". "Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic" is 'not okay.
The narrowing of your definition from the legal standard (Miller test) that we all agree on, to a narrower standard that is extremely subjective, and based on a specific list of content -- rather than on the context that a given image is used -- is not acceptable. Not at all. Not a little bit.
Using such a prospective subjective standard, we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator. (and given a world with religions that require their women to be completely covered from head to toe) that common denominator is pretty low.)
One persons subjective opinion may be that because they personally find an image to be "erotic" or "arousing" in nature, that is is therefore "pornography" will not fly on Wikipedia.
An image that is directly related to the topic of the article it is in and illustrates the topic well (accurately) and benefits the article from an educational or encylopedic perspective should, as long it does not violate the law, be allowed in an article in Wikipedia. We should not give strong consideration to whether an image will be controversial, or whether it will offend "some" people, or whether "children" might see it. When given a choice of two or more images for an article that are equally good, of course, choosing an image that is less likely to offend or be controversial should be done.
A good example of this would be the article on sexual intercourse showing a real picture of a male and female (or more controversially, but just as appropriately two males having sexual intercourse.) Such photos would not inherently be pornography (although I suspect you would insist otherwise.) If used in the context of this encyclopedia, accurate, and tasteful. Showing a naked body is not erotica or pornography in an educational context. Showing one of the most common biological processes that we as humans experience is not pornography either. Yes, it could be "controversial". It could be controversial because the man is black and the woman is white. It could be controversial because the image *does not* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the image *does* show them using a condom. It could be controversial because the man is "old" and the woman looks very "young". It could be controversial because it is two men. It could be controversial because the woman is on top, and not in the missionary position. It could be controversial because they are not married. It could be controversial because they *are* married, but not to one another. It could be controversial because they are married to one another, but they were having coitus for the benefit of the photo, and not to conceive children. There are numerous other reasons (as diverse as the diversity of humanity interacts with politics, religion and science.)
We at Wikipedia try to cut through all of that and warn people ahead of time that they could see controversial things in Wikipedia. We try to focus on our goal. What is our goal? Do we as editors know or remember that? Open and free access to the sum of human knowledge?
If we were in China, or Russia, we would have to accept the censorship (of all types of content, not just prospective erotic content), limiting that vision of "open and free and human knowledge" to some degree that was acceptable within those cultures and political structures. We do face the political reality and limitations of where Wikipedia *is* located. We do not have to limit ourselves based fear of controversy or bad public relations.
Out goal is to accumulate all of human knowledge and make it free and easily accessible. To stay on that task, we can't limit ourselves to trying to please and appease the specific moral tenets of every (or most, or the largest) religious groups.
You have gone to great lengths to pose this argument as something other than about censorship. But what it really is, at it's core, is an attempt to set up guidelines for Wikipedia editors to self-censor images that you or others subjectively describe as "Pornography".
To address your three main points:
You said: "I applaud and think is as good an expression of anti-censorship principles as any. And let us by all means take a stand to not redact our material in deference to the claims of ignorance, superstition, religion, tyranny, and profit. But hardcore pornography does not ennoble the human spirit. It enslaves, not frees, the mind. It tells a false story about human sexual behavior (and that for the profit of capitalists). It is not for this that we want to expend our supply of goodwill."
Well, I applaud you! I doubt many people would disagree with your words, and share your good-hearted intent -- as I do. We want to tell the true story of sexuality and sexual behavior, and not a false story. We want the capability to boldy document and describe human sexual behavior accurately, and in proper perspective. We don't wish to be limited by moralistic and life sheltered individuals who oppose any form of acknowledgment that sexuality exists. We should have no problem with any type of explicit sexual images within Wikipedia, as long as it is educational, and on the specific topic, and benefits the article by helping people to understand that topic better. As long as we are careful to make sure that those images are not, in fact, obscene, and are valuable to the article, that should be enough. Atom ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Your last sentence seems more abstract. Of course we adults should all have s sense of responsibility. There are certainly a set of images which don't really have a need to be on Wikipedia. The ones of those that are sexually explicit should be the least of our concerns. Images that display graphic violence are much more offensive and damaging to all involved. Pictures of human skin are just that.
In my view the primary thing we should avoid is people learning about sexuality (which happens throughout the human lifespan) getting an unrealistic idea about sexuality. The problem with pornography in general, is that the people involved and the frequency of the acts involved are not representative of most people, or most human behavior. As for women being degraded for amusement, as a feminist, of course I agree they should be avoided, generally speaking. I think that accurately documenting history and how people have been misogynistic in the past is the best way to combat it in the future. So, for instance, although I abhor the sexual act now called Bukkake, documenting that a sex act intentionally intended to humiliate and degrade women exists and existed is important. That said, I am not sure how people learning that nudity is normal and healthy is connected to degrading women. Clearly images and artwork of human nudity abound in normal day to day life. Sadomasochistic images of non-consensual rape and bondage do not abound, and I can't see that such an image has a useful place within Wikipedia.
Part of the issue is moralists and ultra conservative religious types who classify anything that causes them or anyone else to be sexual aroused to be immoral, and therefore, pornography, and therefore, not useful regardless of any other context that image might have. What we can agree on, I think, is that we should never add an image to Wikipedia with the specific intent of causing sexual arousal. An image should be added to an article solely because it adds to the understanding of the specific topic of that article. If an image works well to help an article be understood, but also happens to be found to be arousing by some person, that is a personal issue, and not incorrect editing within Wikipedia. Otherwise, something as simple as an image of Mary Jane shoes would be omitted.
What I dislike the most about what you have written is your use of the term "hardcore pornography" and "pornography" as if the terms were clear and we all understood and agreed on what those terms meant. In fact, they are relative terms, and one image can be wholly appropriate in one context, and pornographic in a different context. The terms "sexually explicit" and "obscene" are better defined individually and within the law and would be more useful to use. As we could lay down 100 sexually explicit images on the table, and sort them by our subjective opinion of how graphic they are, from very low to very high, and try to draw a line on where the images were "too sexually explicit" for Wikipedia, you and I, (and many others) would likely agree that image #1 was fine for Wikipedia, and image #100 was to explicit for Wikipedia, and probably nothing else -- certainly not on where the line should be. For any kind of proposal on sexually explicit images within Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to be as objective as possible, and push away subjective criteria. As the term "pornography" itself is entirely subjective, it is not a term that will ever be useful for this purpose. The other factor is that the context in how an image is used is important. Without the context, there is no way to classify an image as being anything other than sexually explicit. And there is nothing wrong with something being sexually explicit. Atom ( talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This edit is exactly why I proposed userfying this months ago. [1] HS is not allowing others to contribute so this belongs in their user space. Cptnono ( talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Herostratus; Hostile edits to essays are not welcome. Write your own essay." I'm confused. This project is in user space. The edits I made I felt were positive and constructive, addressing the issues discussed while removing the feel that it was just one persons personal opinion. Are you trying to say that you own the article and no changes can me made except by you, or with your approval? If you want to move this to your talk page, then please feel free to express yourself. But in a project space it belongs to all of Wikipedia.
Also, I am not sure why you would consider those edits to be "hostile". I will try another edit that is more gentle. I hope that it does not step on your toes. Atom ( talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy."
If the issue were black and white, then there would be people for and people against. Non of us seem to be, in fact, for censoring Wikipedia. We all, for the most part, seem to be against images that are not appropriate for a given article. By policy, Wikipedia is neutral on images that have explicit sexuality. If the image is appropriate for the topic of an article, it may be acceptable. If the image is not appropriate for the topic of an article, then it may not be acceptable. The term used in this essay, hardcore pornography is subjective, and is used in the context by the primary essayist to mean "sexually explicit images that I don't like". As every editor can not like an image for their own personal reasons, it is not a term that can be useful to us. Perhaps some editors would like life to be easier, and have a very easy rule that no sexually explicit images may be used in Wikipedia. That is, however, not in alignment with current Wikipedia policy. To succeed in limiting images that are not in the best interests of WIkipedia, and yet not censor, we need objective criteria. This means there can be no hard and fast rule, that each and every image must be judged by the editors of a given article as to whether the image benefits an article or not. Whether the image is on topic or not is objective. Whether the image is sexually explicit or not is not a factor. Whether the activity and the image truly represent real life (versus fantasy/erotica/entertainment) seems to be a valid argument. Other objective and more concrete criteria could and should be proposed. But, the first thing that should go in this essay is the term hardcore pornography. I don't see any easy way to discuss a subjective term that varies bt context, generally in an objective and concrete way. Atom ( talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So per this, do you want this, Herostratus? I can make Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Hardcore images with:
Only users approved by Herostratus ( talk · contribs) may edit this page. |
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are some problems with that template:
Look, here's an an example - the essay WP:COMPREHENSIVE. I don't agree with this essay at all, and in fact consider it loathsomely amoral (in fact its original title was "Wikipedia is amoral", as if this is something to be proud of). So should I go over there and weaken the language, intertwine arguments against the thrust of the essay into the essay text, rewrite or remove sections of text that make their argument too effectively, add quotations refuting the existing quotations in that section, and just generally seek to destroy the essay?
Of course not. Instead, I could write my own essay and add a link to at the bottom of WP:COMPREHENSIVE. And that's all I can do. How many times do I have to say this?
(Of course, I could correct grammatical errors and so forth in WP:COMPREHENSIVE or, if for some reason I wanted to, make other changes which improved the essay and made its arguments more cogent and compelling. However, even for that - since I hate the essay and openly say so, my motivation would (properly) be automatically in question and my edits would (properly) be subject to an extreme level of scrutiny from people friendly to the essay, and it probably just would not be a good idea for me to edit it at all.)
OK? Herostratus ( talk) 20:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be working at cross-purposes here, so I've asked for mediation, here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. Herostratus ( talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is no need for mediation. If this is a personal opinion/essay offered on your user space, then more power to you. Please express yourself on the topic. Others should not interfere. If it goes back to main space, and it a vehicle for censorship then you will need to let all editors participate and express their viewpoints.
I would then work with editors, including those I don't agree with, in building policies to give us clearer guidelines. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality for where I tried to do this in 2005.) Certainly it should be clear to you that building an essay to further your cause to censor and remove all sexually explicit images in Wikipedia has very little chance of succeeding. That being the case, how can this debate result in constructive and positive changes to Wikipedia that limit the scope of offensive images (of all types -- not just sexuality) and give all future editors a tool so that there is less bickering and time wasted constantly debating image appropriateness? Atom ( talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Atom: Essays express points of view. They can be, if necessary, renamed so they do not appear to be the "be-all and end all" on a particular topic area but it is OK for them to have a particular view. If you disagree with the point of view expressed.... then rename the essay and write one that has the point of view that you think is correct. This is an essay, not a policy page. You can write a competing one that makes a different point but you should not try to turn what it says inside out. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the userfication of this essay. It is an important essay, representing an important perspective, and is the sort of essay which I think is consistent with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. I encourage Herostratus to avoid language which might be incorrectly construed as ownership of the essay, and I encourage those who disagree with the essay to either write their own essay or, if you agree with the thrust of the essay but would like to reword some parts of it, to work thoughtfully here on the talk page and through careful and compromise-driven editing to the essay itself to improve the arguments that it makes.
I hope there is no reason for this to spin out of control into an argument that will end up in front of ArbCom. My reversion here should not be regarded as a dictate or pronouncement of any kind, and if the essay should be userfied, it should happen through some orderly process (and I will !vote against doing so).-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)