Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Eraserhead1 (talk | contribs) |
→Application: r to Thryduulf |
||
| Line 2,010: | Line 2,010: | ||
::::::Indeed all images are not equal, some images are of little value to articles, and NOTCENSORED does not protect any image that is not relevant to the article. NOTCENSORED only protects images from being removed because people don't like them. You refer to "well-established cultural norms" but whose are you talking about? We are a global encyclopaedia and the "well-established cultural norms" even in countries like Britain, France and the United States (and in some cases even regionally within countries) are different from each other. I don't know where you are from, but your words and behaviour speak of different cultural norms to those I grew up with in northern and then south-western England. Choosing what images to show based on not offending the social and cultural norms of one group of people ''is'' censorship. |
::::::Indeed all images are not equal, some images are of little value to articles, and NOTCENSORED does not protect any image that is not relevant to the article. NOTCENSORED only protects images from being removed because people don't like them. You refer to "well-established cultural norms" but whose are you talking about? We are a global encyclopaedia and the "well-established cultural norms" even in countries like Britain, France and the United States (and in some cases even regionally within countries) are different from each other. I don't know where you are from, but your words and behaviour speak of different cultural norms to those I grew up with in northern and then south-western England. Choosing what images to show based on not offending the social and cultural norms of one group of people ''is'' censorship. |
||
::::::The problem as I see it with regards to the images at pregnancy and Muhammed is that you think they add little to no value to the article, but a consensus of editors disagrees with you and think that the images ''do'' add significantly to the article. You have tried to then argue that because the images are offensive to a set of cultural norms that this outweighs the usefulness of the images to the article - and that is exactly what NOTCENSORED is there for, to stop one set of cultural values being imposed on a global, NPOV encyclopaedia. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
::::::The problem as I see it with regards to the images at pregnancy and Muhammed is that you think they add little to no value to the article, but a consensus of editors disagrees with you and think that the images ''do'' add significantly to the article. You have tried to then argue that because the images are offensive to a set of cultural norms that this outweighs the usefulness of the images to the article - and that is exactly what NOTCENSORED is there for, to stop one set of cultural values being imposed on a global, NPOV encyclopaedia. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Thryduulf: You've made two mistakes here (probably unintentionally): |
|||
:::::::#You seem to be asserting that Wikipedia needs to pick one cultural norm and adhere to it; at least, that's what it sounds like when you say ''"but whose [norms] are you talking about?"'' In fact, it's perfectly feasible to to show basic respect for ''all'' cultures without violating the quality of the encyclopedia. We do it the way I've suggested it be done from the beginning: ''Don't do things that go against cultural mores without having a good reason.'' That involves acknowledging that there's a cultural concern out there and weighing it. So: |
|||
:::::::#*We acknowledge that there's a fairly universal social more against casual nudity in public spaces - even in Britain that's the case, though they are more relaxed about it than other lands. On [[nudism]], the article is about nudity so we have a good reason to use a nude image in the lead; on pregnancy we lack that clear mandate. |
|||
:::::::#*We acknowledge that there's a proscription in Islamic law against depictions of Muhammad. On [[Depictions of Muhammad]] the article is about such depictions so we have a good reason to use them; on [[Muhammad]] we lack that clear mandate. |
|||
:::::::#:I get that people don't want to 'give in' to Muslims or prudes - I've heard variations on that sentiment repeated often enough to make me nauseous - but that's just ego talking; [[wp:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality. there comes a point where we just have to acknowledge that using a particular image isn't worth the trouble it creates or the offense it causes, and save our energies for places where it's worth fighting about it. |
|||
:::::::#The cause of the disturbances on both Pregnancy and Muhammad was not that I think the images have no value and other editors think they have value. On the contrary, I suspect that I have roughly the same opinion of the value of those images as any proponent (I don't happen to think it's a bad image). The problem is that the proponents evaluate conventional mores and Muslim culture as worthless; so worthless in fact that there are frequent assertions that such opinions are not even allowed to be ''voiced'' much less considered. It's a complete upturning of NPOV, the censorship of broadly-accepted norms in the real world simply to indulge the tastes of a few advocate wikipedia editors. ridiculous! |
|||
:::::::What your argument really amounts to is not a defense of NPOV, but rather the imposition of your own Western, liberal, secular, intellectual viewpoint on the rest of the world. It's internet [[colonialism]] (if you'll pardon me coining a phrase), except that the savages you're trying to civilize aren't really savages but just anyone who happens to disagree with what you think is normal and acceptable. Is that what you think Wikipedia is meant for? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hans, your analysis of the changes in policy over time are interesting to see (it'd be interesting to generate this on various policies over time, actually), but your analysis of the application is an excellent example of [[WP:ABF|assume bad faith]]. Generally speaking, I see consensus run toward Masem's analysis—we should not ''gratuitously'' offend (so we would not, for example, utilize nude photos of humans if clothed photos would serve the same encyclopedic purpose), but we should also not suppress any information of encyclopedic relevance in order not to cause offense (seeing nude pregnant women clearly illustrates the physiological changes that pregnancy causes in the body, in a way that seeing a clothed pregnant woman does not, seeing depictions of Muhammad throughout history provides historic context, both in ways that text alone has difficulty in fully conveying). Did it occur to you that, rather than being cackling villains, maybe those who disagree with you just as genuinely feel they're doing the right thing as you do, and maybe that's why they frequently gain consensus? Generally, when someone is using NOTCENSORED to disguise a POV push or the like, they're shot down quickly. When I see successful invocations of NOTCENSORED is when someone ''is trying to censor'', that is, to remove pertinent and encyclopedic information or images because they're "offensive". That is exactly what NOTCENSORED is intended to prevent. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hans, your analysis of the changes in policy over time are interesting to see (it'd be interesting to generate this on various policies over time, actually), but your analysis of the application is an excellent example of [[WP:ABF|assume bad faith]]. Generally speaking, I see consensus run toward Masem's analysis—we should not ''gratuitously'' offend (so we would not, for example, utilize nude photos of humans if clothed photos would serve the same encyclopedic purpose), but we should also not suppress any information of encyclopedic relevance in order not to cause offense (seeing nude pregnant women clearly illustrates the physiological changes that pregnancy causes in the body, in a way that seeing a clothed pregnant woman does not, seeing depictions of Muhammad throughout history provides historic context, both in ways that text alone has difficulty in fully conveying). Did it occur to you that, rather than being cackling villains, maybe those who disagree with you just as genuinely feel they're doing the right thing as you do, and maybe that's why they frequently gain consensus? Generally, when someone is using NOTCENSORED to disguise a POV push or the like, they're shot down quickly. When I see successful invocations of NOTCENSORED is when someone ''is trying to censor'', that is, to remove pertinent and encyclopedic information or images because they're "offensive". That is exactly what NOTCENSORED is intended to prevent. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||