Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images

This proposal was marked as rejected on April 5 2005.

---

This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The following poll will remain open until 00:00 UTC on February 1, 2005. The current time is 09:29, November 1, 2024 (UTC).

Tabluation of votes as of 21:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to count the votes. I don't know who is supposed to do this, but since it's been two weeks, I thought I'd take a stab at it.

Summary

The proposals that support the status quo had by far the most support, with the most votes (33 votes) garnered by Shane King's "do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now" alternative. That said, two proposals to create additional user options had support, but it was far less than the "do nothing" vote. Chmod007's proposed user option to hide-all-text or hide-all-images got 10 votes and 4 against. Eequor's proposed user option to hide-all-but-the-summary-section got 2 votes to 1 against. With these two exceptions, no other proposals to change current policy achieved even a simple majority.

In my opinion, the consensus seems to be to "do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now." --Chris vLS 22:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes

Item	Support	Oppose	Other
Proposition A	20	28	Support includes 1 'weak support'
Amendment to Proposition A	14	27	Support includes 1 'weak support'
Proposition B	8	21	Support includes 1 'conditional support'
Amendment to Proposition B	6	19
Proposition C as proposed by User:Frazzydee	6	10
Amendment to Proposition C	4	15
Proposition D	0	19
Amendment to Proposition D	3	10
Proposition E	4	16
Amendment to proposition E	2	9
Text of the alternative policy by User:GeneralPatton	1	21
Amendment by User:Anthony DiPierro	5	14
Alternative policy by User:CXI	0	0
Alternative policy by User:Neutrality	0	2
Alternative policy by User:Chmod007	10	4
Amendment by User:Eequor	2	1
Alternative policy by anthony	1	5
Alternative policy by User:Ta bu shi da yu	1	7
Alternative policy by User:Revmachine21	0	0
Alternative policy by Shane King	33	5
Alternative policy by Tony Sidaway	10	5
Against any sweeping and generalized censorship policies. Vote to consider all censorship on a case by case basis.	8	3
Alternative proposal by Rd232	1	2

--Chris vLS 22:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please also visit Wikipedia:Image censorship for discussion on who gets to choose the images.

The proposal

Background: This policy is a result of discussion about the Image:Vaginal_syphilis.jpg as well as the recent influx of videos from Iraqi insurgent groups showing dismemberments of hostages.

As such, the policy primarily focuses on potentially disturbing graphical images depicting the impact of various diseases on the human body, as well as the potentially disturbing images depicting the killed victims of terrorist acts, and is not about images identified as pornographic.

Proposition A

• To implement metadata tags to assist client-side filtering software in blocking all images of murder, injury, or illness. Giving the users without active filtering software full access. See: icra.org/, http://www.w3.org/PICS/.

Comments by developers on the feasibility of the proposition

• While I won't be developing it, this one seems by far the best technical proposal because:
  • Existing search engines and parental filtering tools installed in homes, libraries, schools and elsewhere can be expected to recognise these tags and hide exactly and only what those who have those tools have asked to be hidden.
  • Those who have chosen not to have a filtered view also get what they are after.
  • This works even for those who have never visited the site before, with no need for user preferences.
  • The systems tend to be descriptive in nature, not making value judgements about what is or isn't offensive to different people and cultures.
  • Also see the previous discussion of m:Offensive content and tagging. Doing something of this sort is basically just waiting for a developer with interest and time to get it done. Jamesday 00:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A tagging scheme such as PICS, while standard, does not specify a taxonomy of ratings: that is, it specifies how the server tells the client that such or such content may be categorized as X, but does not specify a list of categories or guidelines according to which content should be classified. Presumably, to be of any interest to real end-users, the system would have to implement categories understood by major end-user software. Who determines these categories? Are there standards for them? Do they reflect the point of view of certain groups? Etc. David.Monniaux 12:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Define specific alt tags (violence, nudity, sexual) and we will put them in with our images. From that point the user's software can filter or not. It is not a matter of censoring, but of describing. "A violent image is one that shows blood, injury, death." Obviously, violent images can be created by many things including, say, forces of nature like earthquakes or disease. It is not a value judgement. In the same way, nudity and sexual can be defined in a few words. I would expect to expand on the description at the writer's option (i.e. alt="violence (drowned corpse)". There is no need to get into nitpicking detail in definition, either. Writers will know if their image depicts violence, nudity, or sex. So will reviewers. I think it is appropriate to offer viewers the option to select the type of images they (or their children) see. This is not censorship, it is respect. Laurel 02:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support as well. I do not agree with pornographic images however. I agree with the comment that porn can be accessed from a million other places, just not here. I think that if we are to be a universal source of information then we shouldn't be so dammed passive. As long as there are those suffering major diseases or people being killed due to ignorance, corruption, etc. then let it be known! Jaberwocky6669 19:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. Strong support. This would be really great, so long as the blocking is off by default, as this proposal says. --Improv 03:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   1. The last part of your comment doesn't make sense. We are not doing the blocking they are. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 09:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
5. An overdue idea. We don't want libraries or schools to start blocking Wikipedia because of images. --Slowking Man 09:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
6. If something is to be done, this seems the most logical and elegant solution to me. Rama 12:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. There are many sites now where people want to remove images, such as clitoris or penis. This proposal may stop the objections, or at least allow the images to stay.Nereocystis 10:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. If this is well-implemented, it would simply be an additional means of providing information about the content of Wikipedia. What people do with the content of Wikipedia is entirely up to them (and the GFDL). Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Strong Support I don't people here would appreciate it if Christians came in here and told them that they must accept Jesus as their savior or be burned to hell. I know Christians (and others) don't appreciate it when Wikipedia editors try and shove images of genetalia and what now down their throat, with no desire to have any kind of tagging nor respect for people who may not want to see such images. Samboy 05:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Support. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Support There's a discussion going on at Kenneth Bigley regarding the posting of the video of his beheading. Apparently video links to the other hostages' beheadings have already been posted. As if that's not bad enough, one of the websites showing the murders also hosts bestiality material. I wouldn't want schools and libraries to ban Wikipedia because of this stuff, because the whole point of Wikipedia is to make information easily available to people who want to learn. Slim 00:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong support. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support IZAK 09:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. 172 09:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. This give the user the choice; we aren't making any judgements for them. Dan100 10:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Lokifer 02:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
18. Weak support.-gadfium 21:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: this is not an issue of censorship, this is an issue of individual choice. - Chardish 22:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Support so long as the criterion for an image to be marked is VERY clear (i.e. if a female nipple or any genitalia is shown its marked for nudity, otherwise not; if blood is shown its marked for violence, otherwise not). Obviously this criteria would have to be expanded and carefully considered. I don't ultimately care what it is but it must be there. -Lommer | ^talk 06:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong support Porcher 03:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Makes sense to me Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) After thinking about it some more, I feel it would cause arguments among wikipedians. If people want to censure us - that's their business, be we shouldn't try to help them do it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. If we're going to do this, we shouldn't limit it to only certain types of images. And please, if you're going to take the time to code this, code in license tagging at the same time. anthony 警告 12:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Impossible to NPOV tag images. I strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
4. It would be a shame if libraries and schools started blocking Wikipedia, but they won't spend money developing their own filter software; they'll simply block the site. Why waste our time? —Clarknova 05:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. POV. Timbo 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Mark Richards 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Having thought some more, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. No pasarán! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Seems like a sensible notion until one considers how hard it is to get wikipedians to agree on whether or not a given image is 'appropriate' or not. -Sean Curtin 21:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. This policy is just squeezing toothpaste—it moves the argument from whether to include images to whether to tag them and if so what tag to tag them with. I think this just creates more problems and more work, and the actual usefulness of these tags will be zero for almost all Wikipedia readers. Not worth it. NTK 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The original idea of a user preference to link some images was very strong. But this proposal gets us mixed up in using the ICRA vocabulary which has subjective (and POV) terms, like "suitable for young children." See [1] for real examples from wikipedia --Chris vLS 15:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Obviously POV and pro-censorship. Andrew pmk 05:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Oppose. It will be impossible to get people to agree on what should be censored (because that's what it is), and as usual, it will be the people who are most easily offendable who will speak louder and the people who are not offended who will not pay as much attention (because being offended brings motivation). MikeCapone 17:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Oppose.
16. Oppose. Ridiculous. - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. Oppose. --Clawed 04:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose. ICRA vocabulary is hopelessly vague. "Unsuitable for young children"? Whose? J.K. 16:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Wikipedia should not be in the business of censorship. It is about free and open access to human knowledge. Censorship is all about denying access to knowledge. -Thryduulf 23:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Everything offends somebody, who gets to make the calls. no one person or one culture is right. Cavebear42 04:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. This is an interesting and elegant solution to a problem, but it seems that this gives those wanting to censor a tool to do that. The problem is that users may not always be able to control their blocking status. For example. under the Child Online Protection Act some filtering software was required to be installed on library computers (this act was struck down, but there is no reason another form could not arise). A user of that computer would not have free access to Wikipedia and we would be promoting that lack of access. To do so is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and we should not aid any form of censorship. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Enough has been said.- thesocialist
24. Oppose 23:12, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Applying the policy to any page is POV ... what get's which tag is POV. GeorgeOrr
26. Oppose --Sketchee 05:57, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
27. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 05:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
28. Oppose, as it requires special software to take advantage of the functionality. - Chardish 22:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I would have liked to strongly support this, but my support would have had riders. If done this should include facilities for uploaders to specify tagging, and the tags should be wikified so they can be changed by editors. If not fully supported at editing level there is a danger that the tags would only be used in exceptional circumstances (vaginal syphillis, etc) and would be less useful to general browser users who happen to have an aversion to one or other type of image. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Changed vote) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amendment to Proposition A

• To extend this to all images explicitly pornographic.

Support

1. Strong support, so long as blocking is off by default, as this suggests. --Improv 03:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. IRCA uses objective definitions. I'm voting for this, but it should be extended to all images, regardless of content. anthony 警告 12:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Strong support. They don't have porn in the Encyclopedia Britannica-there's no reason for it to be in an online encyclopedia. If people want to see porn, it's readily available, if they don't, then it might scare them away from the wikipedia. -Cookiemobsta 01:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Support, agree with anthony. Euphoria 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Support, though I don't like the word "pornographic". Provide examples of controversial categories, with the abilities to add additional categories. It should be possible to marking an image as displaying human genitalia, for example, and having methods for avoiding the image if desired. This may remove wars on clitoris, vulva, and penis-related sites as to whether a photograph is necessary. Of course, it is is necessary. Allowing people to choose to avoid the image is better than forcing all users to avoid the image. User:nereocystis 18:33:10 5 Dec 2004 (UTC).
6. Let's not sove our moral values down conservative's throats. Thank you. Samboy 05:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Yeah. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Strong support; ditto nereocystis. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Can users please choose whether they want to see vaginas, breasts, anuses and buttocks? It should be fairly easy to arrive at guidelines without metatag-edit warring. Of course pornography is POV; in Iran short sleeves would fall under this category. I would suggest replacing it for nudity of accepted areas of the human body from the Western POV. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   There are some people that describe any image of male or female sexual organs and mammory glands as pornography, I see the images as educational as long as they are presented in a non-sexual way. Are you suggesting that wikipedia drop the NPOV policy in favour of a 'western' POV. Clawed 22:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

10. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support IZAK 09:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. 172 09:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. SupportLokifer 02:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Weak support.-gadfium 21:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. STRONG SUPPORT! A RATING SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE FOR A WARNING TO MINORS!

Oppose

1. Pornography means different things to different people. You need to define what you mean by pornography or there will be huge arguments over the tag. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Theresa. →Raul654 09:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
3. "I know it when I see it"... too subjective. Strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
4. Precisely. —Clarknova 05:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. I agree strongly w Theresa & Dante. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Agreed, terribly POV. Too subjective. Timbo 01:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Mark Richards 02:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. PICS tagging should be enabled for *all* images,in my opinion, not just those that one person or another might describe as pornographic. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Who defines "explicit" and "pornographic"? -Sean Curtin 21:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose, for the same reasons I oppose proposition A. This only extends prop. A's problems. NTK 21:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose. See [2] for examples on how tough it would be to apply. Chris vLS 00:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I agree with the reasons stated by many people above. MikeCapone 17:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Don't give into narrow minds.--Jirate 13:21, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
16. Oppose. To me "explicitly pornographic" means hardcore porn (showing more then just anatomy), and that is already not allowed on Wikipedia, if I read the rules correctly. --12.216.254.3 06:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Ridiculously subjective - just look at Talk:Clitoris - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Let's wait until we encounter a stiuation that requires us to consider if it is pornography; so far, all of the images Wikipedia has offered can be defended as being informative or educational. -- llywrch 20:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
20. Oppose.Clawed 04:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose. -Thryduulf 00:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. there is no one definition of pornographic. in the middle east a woman in a bikini is pornagraphic. Cavebear42 04:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose. "Explicit" and "Pornographic" are points of view. This policy would contradict NPOV. GeorgeOrr
25. # Oppose. --Sketchee 05:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
26. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Were we to categorize articles and/or images as pornographic, we wouldn't be able to talk about TV advertising anymore. Anville 21:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposition B

• To implement server-side filtering of all images of murder, injury, or illness. Giving the users an option to turn it off or on in their user preference.

Comments by developers on the feasibility of the proposition

• This sounds like a useful possibility after the standard tags have been done, so that anyone who doesn't want to use one of the standard filtering tools can turn on filtering here instead or as well. Not really limited to just what's in this proposition though - the tagging systems cover a wider range of things. Should really be described as MediaWiki software supporting standard tag-based filtering. Jamesday 00:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Support; as long as the default is that the images are on, this will make Wikipedia a safe place to browse from cyber cafes, work, and what not. A lot of the world views the internet from such places (Have you tried getting home internet in México?) and needs to not accidently stumble on pages of content not suitable for viewing in public. Samboy 06:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Support; and this is feasible. Extra markup can be added to Wikipedia's current code for adding or displaying images to allow a user to indicate that the image should be censored for those unwilling. Cookiecaper 21:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Strong support, with filtering on by default (ditto Samboy). ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, again give the user the choice. Dan100 10:31, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Lokifer 02:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - POV disputes are resolved on Wikipedia all the time. - Chardish 05:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Even if I thought this was a good idea, it's simply not feasible. Shane King 00:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Too POV to include only images of murder, injury, or illness. anthony 警告 12:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Impossible to do in an NPOV manner. Strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
4. The wiki is slow enough. It doesn't need auto bowdlerzing to further lag things. —Clarknova 05:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Timbo 01:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. It would be quite enough to produce a text-only skin for mediawiki. People who think they may find images upsetting would select this skin. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. While this would be more likely to actually be used than Proposition A, I oppose it on the same general grounds. It doesn't solve the controversy. NTK 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. As long as it rests on the ICRA vocabulary, it's a problem, see below. Chris vLS 23:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. MikeCapone 17:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. No platoform for priggs.--Jirate 13:22, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
13. Oppose. This is an invitation for POV. Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
16. Oppose I would support filtering all images with an option in the user preferences, but not selected images. Clawed 05:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Thryduulf 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
18. oppose. or rather we start a separate project called "the encyclopiea of happyness and rainbows - an alternative history of the world" Cavebear42 04:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose.-gadfium 21:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose --Sketchee 05:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

1. So long as the images are all visible by default, this is also a fine choice. --Improv 03:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: this is not an issue of censorship, this is an issue of individual choice. - Chardish 22:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amendment to Proposition B

• To extend this to all images explicitly pornographic.

Support

1. It should be extended to all images, regardless of content. What if I want to filter out images of people smoking pot? Should I not be able to, because Wikipedians have deemed that images of people executing terrorists is disturbing but images of people smoking pot isn't? Too POV. anthony 警告 12:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Work, cyber cafes, and what not. Samboy 06:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Support, ditto anthony. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Lokifer 02:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "I know it when I see it"... too subjective. Strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. I agree w Dante & Theresa again, please give an example of where there is "explicitly pornographic" material on the wiki, or if there isn't any, explain why we would keep it if there was any. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This is still totally POV anthony. Timbo 01:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. PICS tagging should be enabled for *all* images,in my opinion, not just those that one person or another might describe as pornographic. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose, oppose, oppose. Horrible, loaded proposition. NTK 21:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Both ICRA and non-ICRA definitions of pornography are difficult to make NPOV. Chris vLS 23:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. MikeCapone 17:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. No platform for bigots.--Jirate 13:22, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
10. Ridiculously subjective - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. For something to be pornographic, you need a consistent definition of what is obscene, which does not exist. For example, in the U.S. State of Oregon, there is no legal definition for the word "obscenity". Let's not get into this quagmire until we are forced to deal with it. -- llywrch 21:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Oppose same reason I oppose the parent Amendment. Clawed 05:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. There is no NPOV definition of pornography. Thryduulf 00:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
16. oppose, this gets sillier as i go down further. Cavebear42 04:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose.-gadfium 21:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Still looking for a reasonable solution. We should include information for people of all points of view, but we can't present it in a POV way. That would be too similar to presenting an article condemning something and allowing people to not read counter arguments. Should we take the article on Mariah Carey and allow fans to check a setting to view only the glowing and favorable parts of her career? Don't mirrors exist that don't include images anyway? --Sketchee 05:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 20:56, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

We shouldn't have any porngraphy here. This is an encylopedia. If you are talking about nudity you should say so. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't we have pornography here? An article on pornography would probably be illustrated with nothing else. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I never thought of that! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • See below for examples. Whether it is or is not pornographic is a pretty pov call. Chris vLS 23:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposition C as proposed by User:Frazzydee

• That all explicit images of murder, injury, or illness, are displayed in-line upon request.

Official comment by developer on the feasibility of the proposition

Support

1. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia should be a work-safe place. Samboy 06:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Absolutely support. The majority of people are still offended by images of murder, injury, illness, and other pornography. It should be available upon request only, if it's available at all. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. Wikipedia's meant to supply information, not opportunities for voyeurism. You don't find links to videos of people being murdered in the online Encyclopaedia Britannica. Sadly, you do on Wikipedia. See Eugene Armstrong for an example. Slim 00:19, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Agree with Slim. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
6. Perfect. The best way to provide information is to provide useful versions of it. If a page is unusuable to a substantial segment for whatever reason, we're failing to provide information. Cool Hand Luke 11:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too POV, see above. anthony 警告 12:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Everything should be in-line upon request... and that request is someone going to the relevant page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose.--Jirate 13:23, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
6. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Absolutely NOT. We are in the business of providing information, not censoring it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Clawed 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. oppose. see 2 Cavebear42 04:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Aren't images displayed in-line (that is, in the page) at present, using the HTML IMG tag? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Define "displayed in-line" and "upon request". ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Ditto Eequor. I just can't tell what you're proposing. Dan100 10:34, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Amendment to Proposition C

• To extend this to all images explicitly pornographic.

Support

1. I'll support this amendment but it is not sufficient to save the proposition. "Upon request" is too broad. anthony 警告 12:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Cookiecaper
3. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Lokifer 02:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "I know it when I see it"... too subjective. Strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Same comment as previously regarding "explicit pornography" [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. No special treatment for images that one person or another might term pornographic --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. I don't see how this is any less POV than above (which Anthony voted against for that reason). If one of these proposals is POV, extending it to "all images explicitly pornographic" does not make it NPOV, it just puts in another POV. NPOV means not making POV judgments about the images. Timbo 22:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • I'm voting for the amendment, not the proposal. anthony 警告 13:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. "Pornographic" is not NPOV criterion. Chris vLS 23:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. --Jirate 13:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
10. Opposee - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Clawed 05:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Thryduulf 00:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. oppose and i move for less tings to vote on Cavebear42 04:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Does this mean Wikipedia should become a porn site, or what? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposition D

• That all explicit images of murder, injury, or illness, should not be shown in-line, but instead just linked.

Official comment by developer on the feasibility of the proposition

===Support=== No! No! No! I say No! you must think this is annoying, having to make this a reliable page but its really not, it wont ever be until you stop random people like me form editing it, so, bring it to your boss, or, if you want to keep your job don't do anything about it,

Oppose

1. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC): I'm all for protecting people from seeing "graphic and potentially disturbing images", but it shouldn't impede other users' ability to view the article, or detract from their experience.
2. No to censorship. --Improv 03:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. It's not censorship because the image is still available however if I want to print the article, I'll need the images in the article. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. anthony 警告 12:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Absolutely unacceptable. Impossible to be NPOV about it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
6. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. POV POV POV Timbo 01:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. This isn't the way I want to go. Let's not end up as Encyclopedia Puritanica --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. --Jirate 13:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
12. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose; it distracts from the flow from articles. But there should be a switch to make images inline. Samboy 06:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Horrible. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Strongly oppose. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose, we should not censor. Dan100 10:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose --Sketchee 05:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:02, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose. - Chardish 22:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amendment to Proposition D

• To extend this to all images explicitly pornographic.

Support

1. anthony 警告 12:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Andrew pmk 05:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) Supported, because it will give people the choice whether to view the images without censoring them altogether. However, if the images are on a page which is specifically marked as "possibly disturbing", that is by accessing it only through a specific gateway page, then that specific page should be exempt.
3. Support. Remember, you can support the amendment while opposing the proposition, and opposing the amendment is not a vote on the proposition itself. - Chardish 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. making wikipedia work safe. Squallwc 05:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Wikipedia is censored all the time--the community makes unavailable what they think shouldn't be available. I see no problem with linking obviously objectionable content. --Locarno 04:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "I know it when I see it"... too subjective. Strongly oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Agreed, terrible policy. Timbo 01:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. No way. Who keeps submittng these dumb amendments? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. --Jirate 13:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
7. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. This is getting old. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Strongly oppose. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. oppose. less and less votes going down, people getting worn out. Cavebear42 04:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposition E

In order to evaluate the scope of the situation and the feasibility of objectively tagging content, templates will be created for each of the factors in the ICRA vocabulary except chat. These templates can be added to any image page. Because this proposal uses no admin powers and requires no additional server development, it will be deemed passed if a simple majority votes in favor of it.

Support

1. Yes. Let's not shove some liberal agenda down the throats of people with moral values. Samboy 06:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   1. Comment Um, people with moral values don't necessarily agree to this amendment. Go a little easier on the assumptions, there, please. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. I like it. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Strong support, unless somebody has a more comprehensive, less POV vocabulary. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The ICRA is inherently and massively POV. I STRONGLY oppose any attempt to shoehorn it into the Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
   • Do you have an explanation somewhere of how ICRA is POV? anthony 警告 22:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • If it's not self-evident to you no amount of elucidation will edify. Oppose. —Clarknova 15:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Agree with Dante. Timbo 01:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose, but could be persuaded. Looking at the ICRA label generator it seems to ask some pretty loaded questions. "Material that might be perceived as setting a bad example for young children" worries me, for instance. Such tags would, I suspect, tend to be massively abused. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. ICRA is just another loaded censorship tool. NTK 21:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. POV. Andrew pmk 05:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The ICRA vocabulary is very difficult to apply, especially in NPOV way. --Chris vLS 23:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Nope. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. J.K. 16:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. oppose. i dont remember putting them in charge of my internet. Cavebear42 04:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose. POV GeorgeOrr
15. Oppose. I'm not sure this can be presented in a NPOV way. --Sketchee 05:54, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:03, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Amendment to proposition E

The context tags shall also be excluded.

Support

1. Strong support. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If we do this the context tag should always be set to educational because of the nature of Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The ICRA vocabulary is very difficult to apply, especially in NPOV way. --Chris vLS 23:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. --Jirate 13:25, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
6. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. No. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose --Sketchee 05:58, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Text of the alternative policy by User:GeneralPatton

This policy proposes that all images of murder, injury, or illness should be immediately deleted, and that instead links to external sites should be used for such content.

Support

1. Aye. Pornography shouldn't have a place on any server anywhere, and definitely not on Wikipedia's. Non-pornographic images such as graphic photographs of illness or those that are not extremely violent should be censored according to the Propositions above. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No to cenosorship, just giving an extra option. GeneralPatton 23:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Censorship of this sort would be very bad, and would give weight to some very scary people. --Improv 03:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. No way!!!!!!!!!!! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. anthony 警告 12:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Not even a chance. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
6. No way. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:51, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
7. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. No offence, but this proposal looks like some kind of joke. Is it a serious proposition? What possible advantage, apart from possible bandwidth savings, could offsite linking confer? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Censorship. Andrew pmk 05:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Chris vLS 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose. --Jirate 13:25, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I find this proposal to be offensive and want it censored, please. :) Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
16. Oppose ; I support optional tags which let the end user decide if the image is pornographic (or of murder, or gross, or whatever), but I oppose destroying such images. Let's not shove our views down conservative's throats; but let's not let them shove their view down our throats. Samboy 06:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG oppose. (rather, Hahahahahahaha) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. Goobergunch|? 21:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. Strongly, strongly oppose. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Dan100 10:38, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Amendment by User:Anthony DiPierro

To extend this to all images.

Support

1. anthony 警告 12:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. No inline images is better than censoring inline images that might perturb a few Puritans. NTK 21:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. If the preceeding proposal somehow manages to pass and be implemented, then by all means extend it to all images and let everyone see how bad an idea it is. Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • Thanks, I'm glad at least someone understood the purpose of this amendment. anthony 警告 21:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Yes, of course. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Seriously. Considering entries like lolicon, it's probably best to give people the choice of whether to see a given image. --ruinia 03:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Even as a joke, I'm opposing it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
   • Why? You don't think the amendment makes the proposal better? anthony 警告 22:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Ha. Nice amendment. I laughed. Three times. But, no. PhiloVivero 08:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • I must be confused about how amendments work. You'd rather delete a category of images than all images? anthony 警告 12:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. The wiki would sure run faster without them.. Clarknova 06:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. -1, Troll. →Raul654 06:22, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
   • So now trolling is doing something that Raul doesn't understand. The purpose of the amendment is to make the proposal NPOV. That this isn't enough to save the proposal is irrelevant. Please, before you call someone a troll try to understand what they are doing. Will someone intelligent please explain this to Raul? I hate dealing with dumb people. anthony 警告 13:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • You should not completely discount the possibility that people understand you and are still opposed to your idea. If amendments work as I think they work, your amended proposal would read, in full,

       This policy proposes that all images should be immediately deleted, and that instead links to external sites should be used for such content.

     • In short, that no pictures whatsoever be included with Wikipedia. I'm guessing the logo might be exempted, but perhaps I'm jumping the gun on that. It's mildly amusing to think of us informing the editors of the Enyclopedia Britannica that we are much more neutral than they are because we don't have all those contentious graphical depictions, but I somehow doubt the accuracy of such a statement. I'm also sorely tempted to extend the argument to all the inflammatory glyphs on our site casually referred to as "letters", but fearing that such a thing could be taken to be facetious, I shall not.
     • For the record: I do not dispute that this amended policy would be NPOV. With "N" as in "No". JRM 17:09, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
       • No, I don't discount that people might be opposed to the amendment, but anyone who calls the amendment trolling doesn't understand the point. Yes, the amendment would make the policy such that all images were deleted, but that's better than deleting just "images of murder, injury, or illness". Thus the amendment makes the proposal better, though not good enough to save it. My vote to support is not a vote to support the amended proposal, it is to support the amendment to the proposal. That's how amendments work. anthony 警告 03:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Terrible idea. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Again I assume this is some kind of joke. Apologies to those who take it seriously. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • I assure you it's not a joke. Removing all images regardless of content is better than only removing images with certain content. anthony 警告 14:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Terrible idea. Censorship. Andrew pmk 05:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • Censorship generally means removing something because of its content. Removing everything regardless of content isn't really censorship. anthony 警告 21:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Chris vLS 23:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Delete nominator. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Proposals like this are straw men set up by people who oppose moral values. Samboy 06:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This isn't a proposal, it's an amendment to a proposal.
12. Nice one, Anthony. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. But you seem to have put your vote in the wrong column. anthony 警告 21:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Slippery slope, what next? delete all text?Clawed 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. At the very least, we'd have to delete all that obscene ASCII art. Anville 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:07, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Other alternative proposed policies

Alternative policy by User:CXI

Added 04:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that the question of what is deemed disturbing is beyond the scope of this particular proposal - it is merely a suggestion for how to deal with such content (if any).

• Either all potentially disturbing or graphic images contain (disturbing), which may result in many broken links and excess work as each image must be moved to a new name.
• Or all potentially disturbing or graphic images contain a {{graphicimage}} or {{disturbingimage}} boilerplate. This has the advantage of being easier to modify, as well as Special:Whatlinkshere.
• Thumbnails to images as tagged above would be replaced by a thumbnail containing the text "this image may offend some users, click here to display" or similar.
• A preference option would be created to disable the above and simply display the required pictures.
• An alternative "view this page with possibly disturbing images included" link for one-off pages or anon users.

Comment

1. This idea might show some promise, but also seems to contain technical difficulties discussed earlier. I like the idea of being able to change a "censorship option" in preferences, if it didn't have a downside. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 19:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternative policy by User:Neutrality

• Any registered user who in good faith believes that an image should not be inlined can call a binding poll on the matter. If a majority of users concur, than the image is wikilinked instead of inlined, with a clear indication of what the image is displayed in the piped link.

I don't like this. I don't think the majority should opress the minority. Samboy 02:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Im a big fan of letting such things happen but i dont think that this needs policy. this is the natureal order of things. when most of us dont like the picture, it is discussed on the talk page and eventually falls away. lets not create a new forum just for this. Cavebear42 04:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:08, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative policy by User:Chmod007

• Two user preferences should be added to the software; 1) checkbox for hiding all text from articles. 2) checkbox for hiding all images from articles, and replacing them with links. Users concerned that they might get offended by the content in the encyclopaedia can turn off both text and images. The default setting should either be no content or both text and images. Images should not be classified based on arbitrary judgements of level of "disturbance".

Support

1. I support; see my comments in the discussion. Timbo 20:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. I think this idea is simple enough to be useful. Let's have a text-only skin for Media Wiki. An image-only skin is probably rather less useful. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. This would show no bias in how images or text are censored. Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. This is a good one - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Clawed 05:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Seems very much the ideal solution to avoid censorship as it will not be Wikipedia doing the censoring, but the user themself. - Vague | Rant 02:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Yes, you can turn off images in your browser, but what if you browse with multiple windows open simultaneously and want to keep images available in the other windows? Although I'd likely never turn off images on WP, I do browse in multiple windows quite often, and I know I'm not the only one. -Sean Curtin 23:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, a good, simple way to give users the choice of what they do or don't see. Dan100 10:39, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. If I'm in a public library I'd like to disable images if I'm reading about the clitoris or penis, for example. Aequo 19:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Useless. Just about any browser is already going to have a feature to turn off images. anthony 警告 00:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • To be honest, a lot of people won't know how to turn off images in their browser. I don't, although I've never tried and never wanted to. Additionally, it would be useful to edit out images only for wikipedia, and do it in a way that we know conserves an appealing wiki experience. For those reasons I think it is highly useful and NPOV. Timbo 20:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • Fair enough. I withdraw my opposition. If someone wants this (apparently you do), and a developer wants to implement it, I don't oppose it. anthony 警告 13:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think it is childish to say "If you object to an image I don't object to, then you should shut up and just turn off all images." 99% of the images in Wiki will not bother 99% of the Wiki users, and enhance the Wiki experience. It is the 1% of images that need to be somehow tagged so people can optionally turn them off. Thank cyber cafes. Think browsing at work. Think browsing in front of your wife or kids. Samboy 08:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   • Comment (this isn't a vote) I strongly agree with Anthony that all browsers can do this already. Having said that, there is a very widespread (if false) perception that turning off images is something you need to be a geek to do. See the current discussions on talk:clitoris. I disagree with Samboy because I personally find turning off images useful (albeit I do it using my browser controls) and I know that this method works very well. There are pages that I do not like to visit with images turned on because of a phobia. It really does work very well indeed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's 'geeky' or whatever is moot; simple fact is that most users don't know how to do this. Dan100 10:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. It must be more than a user preference. It chould also be available without logging in. Perhaps as a tab or switch at the top of the page. Also, I find the "no text" option more whimsical than useful. Cool Hand Luke 11:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree with Cool Hand Luke. I like the proposal, but it only seems to solve the problem for logged in users. I wouldn't want to turn off all images by default for anonymous users, though this would be a better idea than implementing almost any of the above proposals on this page. Aenar 00:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't have to be for logged-in users only. A preference can be stored in a cookie which can have an indefinite (or at least very long) lifetime. There can be a 'public terminal' checkbox which would restrict the cookie's action to the duration of the current session. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amendment by User:Eequor

Users should also be provided the option to hide all sections except for lead sections (section 0).

Support

1. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative policy by anthony

• Wikipedians are reminded that words or images that could be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers are to be avoided, but not at the expense of accuracy. If the same content can be presented in a way which is less offensive to readers, then this should be done.

Support

1. But thats already the case, isn't it? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • Yes it is. See Wikipedia:Profanity. anthony 警告 03:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not in favor of the proposition that it is an encyclopedia's business to avoid giving offence. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • Do you mind explaining why not? It seems to me there's a pretty narrow line between its not being our business to avoid giving offence and its being our business to ensure we do. I don't think there is anything to be gained by being willing to cause it for its own sake. Personally, I feel the Abu Ghraib pictures are gratuitous. I would not vote to have them removed or to censor the article in any way, but still I disapprove of their inclusion because they are, I believe, intended to shock and cause offence. I think all Anthony is calling for is for us to be sympathetic to all views even if we feel we cannot accommodate them. I think that is pretty much what a wiki is about.Dr Zen 01:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • Well we'll be accused of putting up stuff just to shock no matter what we do. I don't believe it's an accusation that's worthy of comment. We shouldn't bow to censorship calls on the grounds of decency, taste and whatnot because this is an encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'm all for avoiding gratuitously offensive images, but not for a policy that gives priority to avoiding offense in a blanket manner as worded here. NTK 21:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • Priority over what? All this proposal says is that if all else is equal, then we should pick the less offensive solution. anthony 警告 14:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • I would be more comfortable with a policy that discourages gratuitous or irrelevant offensive content over a policy that mandates choosing the least offensive possible presentation. Even though your policy contains the phase the phrases "not at the expense of accuracy" and "same content," it seems that almost invariably the complaints about "offensive" or "disturbing" material (as opposed to allegations of bias) are over content, not accuracy or presentation. I feel like any such "mandate to not offend" is going to be used by the censor lobby. NTK 06:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Fuck 'em if they can't take NPOV encyclopaedic information - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative policy by User:Ta bu shi da yu

• Any article that includes a graphic picture that is not directly related to the topic should not be thumbnailed, but linked to. However, those pictures that are directly related to the topic should be thumbnailed. If you are looking up clitoris, then you should be aware that a picture of a clitoris may be on the website. Similarly, if you are looking up an article on Vaginal syphilis, then you should be aware that you may see a picture of vaginal syphilis! However, if you are looking up a picture on bears, then you should not necessarily see a picture of freshly skinned bears. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Why would we put unrelated images in articles anyway? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not in favor of raising this kind of guideline to the level of policy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Dittaeva 12:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. MikeCapone 18:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Clawed 05:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Dan100 10:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:12, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative policy by User:Revmachine21

• Leave current method for explicit content and pictoral management unchanged.

Alternative policy by Shane King

• Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now. Policy should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive policy is both wasteful and harmful. Shane King 00:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. I support this. PhiloVivero 08:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. anthony 警告 00:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 00:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) - Often the best policy
4. Clarknova 15:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Exactly. The Recycling Troll 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Indeed! Przepla 22:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. <nosarcasm>I am humbled by your keen insight.</nosarcasm> JRM 02:21, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
9. I despise censorship, please do not rely on Wikipedia to raise your children for you. [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
10. My thoughts exactly Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Like, duh. Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Policy bloat is a bad thing. -Sean Curtin 21:15, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
13. I prefer Tony Sidaway's policy, but this is next best. The only problem with not setting any policy is that this is going to come up again and again. If there was a "no censorship of non-gratuitous images"-type policy then there would be grounds to quash these endless arguments when the censors come around. NTK 21:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Of course. Paul August 20:45, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
15. Trilobite (Talk) 17:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
16. Timbo 18:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. Looking at the data (isn't that what thinktanks are supposed to do?), this seems sensible now. Chris vLS 23:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. Support. Finally something that makes sense. MikeCapone 18:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. Support. --Jirate 13:26, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
20. Support. Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
21. Yep - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
22. Support -- 00:00, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
23. --fvw* 13:47, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
24. Support. -- llywrch 21:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
25. — マイケル ₪ 21:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
26. Support. --Robert Merkel 00:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. - Jeltz talk 18:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. J.K. 15:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Solitude said it best---this is a non-issue. We already have common-sense to keep us from putting the goatse man on goatse.cx. We need nothing else. grendel|khan 09:46, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
30. Support. While preventative measures can be useful, these proposals are broad and overly subjective. If we could isolate specific cases that we all agree was handled correctly, we could make specific proposals to deal with those types of cases. --Sketchee 06:06, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
31. One I can support. RickK 06:13, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Thryduulf 08:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Intensely oppose. There's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be prepared and there's no harm in applying this to current offending photographs, of which there are some not-completely-insignificant number. Big thumbs down to this idea. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. No, why? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Agree with Cookiecaper. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. We should not impose moral values on others. Samboy 08:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Nothing like waiting for the horse to bolt before shutting the door, is there? Dan100 10:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative policy by Tony Sidaway

Added 11:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That no express effort shall be made to cater for content labelling for the purpose of avoiding the Wikipedia site being blocked, whether on political grounds or on grounds of indecency or taste. Organisations wishing to bowdlerize Wikipedia can already do so by forking the content and producing their own expurgated copy.

Support

1. Strongly support. This is a common-sense proposal. Gratuitously offensive pictures should not be included, but a picture of a clitoris at clitoris or a nipple at nipple is completely appropriate. I might point out that this policy does technically run a bit amock with some current Wikipedia practices such as spoiler warnings though, whether or not that was intended. All the same I think this is the best policy proposed so far. NTK 21:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Seems compatible with the one above. Trilobite (Talk) 17:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Strong Support as well. Timbo 18:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. --Jirate 13:27, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
5. Support. Better than implementing something POV or otherwise broken. Bryan 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Damn right - David Gerard 23:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. — マイケル ₪ 21:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
8. 22:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
9. Strongly support. RickK 06:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OPPOSE again. There's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't at least provide users with a warning about the impending content. It's a common courtesy, and it's POV not to do so. Cookiecaper 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. Wikipedia should do everything it can to discourage forking, attempt to understand the reasons why forks might occur, and act progressively whenever possible. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   1. Comment Forks occur in copyleft systems because they are allowed. They're good because they promote diversity and innovation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. BSveen 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
4. Um, no. Forks should be avoided as much as reasonable. Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Wikipedia can, does and should provide images which a large enough proportion of people want to have a choice about whether to see as part of an article. A means of providing that choice is perfectly reasonable. (And seems obvious that for a number of reasons forking, though obviously permitted, is to be discouraged.) Rd232 12:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Against any sweeping and generalized censorship policies. Vote to consider all censorship on a case by case basis.

Support

1. — マイケル ₪ 02:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
2. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:03, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
3. Jeltz talk 18:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 15:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 21:32, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
6. Maurreen 05:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Support in principle, disagree with the word "censorship" in this context.
7. Support. RickK 06:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. -- Scott e^iπ 07:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Pointless strawman; very few people want to censor Wikipedia. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes, this is nothing but a strawman. BSveen 00:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
3. Strawman. IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: this is not an issue of censorship, this is an issue of individual choice. No one wants censorship. - Chardish 22:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Strictly speaking, it isn't compatible with Anthony's suggestion. It's a proposal to make a policy decision not to do anything on particular enumerated grounds mentioned. There are good, valid reasons to make decisions on content, and those can be argued, but I think fear that the site will be blocked is a very bad one and should be ruled out. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You're right. What I meant was that both proposals were quite near to the "avoid bowdlerisation" option I was looking for. You make a good point about people being free to fork our content. I'd much rather we advised them to go and do that than introducing our own censorship at source. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Part of Wikipedia should document what various organisations consider unacceptable about wikipedia. If someone want to view wikipedia in line with those views. I'd much rather have them do it via Wiki info than by their own lights.--Jirate 19:13, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• The proposals are not issues of censorship, it is an issue of offering users the choice to not view images that could potentially be offensive. For people who do want to view the images, they can simply adjust the preference in their settings. Just because I may want to read about something disturbing/graphic/inappropriate does not mean that I want to view pictures of it, and for viewers like me, I see it as common courtesy to give me the option to disable those pictures. The argument that this is a POV issue is not valid either - whether or not an image is actually offensive is questionable, but there is little argument that numerous images on the site are potentially offensive, and I support the implementation of a preference that gives me the choice to not view them if I so desire. Why should I be forced to look at an image I don't want to see as a requirement of my reading of the text of the article through a graphic-enabled browser? Why can't I turn these images off for myself, on my computer, and let other people make the choice to see them if they want to? IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: this is not an issue of censorship, this is an issue of individual choice. - Chardish 22:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposal by Rd232

Added 8 Jan 1500

That all images deemed controversial in the usual Wikipedia way have an additional descriptor added to the image tag (eg [[image:controversial.jpg|right|300px|{{controversialimage}}|Picture of something controversial]]). Images deemed controversial (equivalent to "potentially offensive" or "offensive to some", avoiding judgement on whether actually offensive) are replaced by the server with their alt tag, noting to "click here" to show page with image displayed (alt text should fill the same space as the image to maintain page formatting). Logged-in users can set preferences to override this behaviour so that controversial-tagged images are displayed straight away. The tag may optionally distinguish "controversial-violence" and "controversial-sexual" to help users fine-tune preferences. No censorship, just minimally-intrusive user control over what they're exposed to imagewise.

NB this is under the "case-by-case" heading because that's the philosophy - it's just a technical proposal on how case-by-case decisions be implemented for the user. (And provides a half-way house between "that image doesn't belong here" and "yes it does".)

Support

Strongly, strongly support. I was going to suggest this myself if anyone else hadn't. Of course images that might be explicit/potentially offensive/disturbing still have a place on Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no harm in allowing people to remove from the body of the article that which they do not want to see without warning. - Chardish 05:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose all attempts at censorship. RickK 06:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: this is not an issue of censorship, this is an issue of individual choice. - Chardish 22:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a censorship proposal. We already have case-by-case debates about whether images are suitable; this proposal is entirely limited to providing a middle ground between removing and keeping images if such a debate arises on a particular article's Talk page. The proposal does not specify how it should be decided whether the tag is used. It is perfectly compatible with the tag never actually being used if debates always end up choosing other options, eg replacing a disputed image with a different one. Rd232 12:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. People are perfectly capable of making up their own mind about what they consider to be offensive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Notice: All discussion will be moved to the separate page once the voting begins, until then we kindly ask users to post their comments here.

Both Patton's proposals strike me as hysterical reactions to a non-problem. Wikipedia is not prime time television, nor is it a children's library. Personal outrage is no excuse for censorship. If the image is relevant to the article, then whether it is subjectively grotesque or titillating is unimportant. There are any number of groups, and even national governments, who would like to see certain articles (e.g. birth control) removed entire. If we don't bow to this sort of pressure, why should we yield to the merely squeamish?

The only part of this policy I would grudgingly agree with is the idea that unappealing pictures be linked rather than thumbnailed inline. Anything more robs the wiki of valuable content. A syphilitic vagina may be disgusting to look at, but I'm better off knowing what one looks like than not.

A final point of semantics: all images are "graphic". Say what you really mean: "Offensive". — Clarknova 03:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an image is offensive to a large number of people, I think it should be linked to rather than inlined. For instance, the photographs in Clitoris and Vulva should be linked to rather than inlined. anthony 警告 04:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The primary problem with the proposals outlined by User:GeneralPatton above is that they cater only to the needs of those who wish to avoid such content. I feel that such a restriction might quickly evolve to encompass any sexual or even slightly offensive pictures, and thus totally erode the purpose of inline images in some topics. For the stronger of stomach, it would be vital to be able to view pages without having to click back and forth between disturbing pictures and the articles containing them.

The proposal I outlined above gives provision for those who are unconcerned about graphic content, while still hiding offensive images from people who are likely to be offended by them. CXI 04:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, Wikipedia has a mandate as an encyclopedia to provide unbiased, complete, truthful information about a variety of notable, verifiable topics, including controversial topics and issues of dispute. Wikipedia does not have a mandate to bombard readers with explicit pictures of genitals. And the "if you don't want to see it, don't click on the wikilink" argument is bogus. People should be able to read about the genitalia without being forced to view the genitalia. Have a link or external link—just don't go on a crusade to force people to look at explicit images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I think the vulva and clitoris articles as they now are is fine. The black-and-white photos are labeled properly in an encyclopedic context—much better than other image that used to be on the page. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:15, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I also think the good general's suggestion for an entirely new namespace is a bit drastic; my own beliefs are closer to that of anthony's ("If an image is offensive to a large number of people, I think it should be linked to rather than inlined.") and CXI's ("...I feel that such a restriction might quickly evolve to encompass any sexual or even slightly offensive pictures, and thus totally erode the purpose of inline images in some topics.") [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:19, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I likee your suggestion except for the part about majority rule. We should be trying for consensus here, so unless there's a really good reason not to link to the image, I think we should be more inclusive in our target audience. As for the "if you don't want to see it, don't click on the wikilink", that doesn't work at all unless you put a "warning" on every single wikilink to the article. Even then it should be made easy to turn images off and on. I suppose a software feature for this and putting a "warning" on every incoming link would be acceptable. But if we're going to edit the software, we might as well just allow some images to be marked potentially offensive and allow someone to turn on a feature to not inline such images. That would solve just about everyone's concerns, except for concerns about anonymous users. In any case, I wonder if any laws come into play, here. The CDA was declared unconstitutional, but that was based on vagueness. Some Wikipedian admins (namingly those who protect a page in order to include an image) are knowingly and intentionally giving access to sexually explicit images to minors. I suppose Wikimedia could hide under the "we don't know anything about it" excuse, but not the admins who are intentionally protecting pages from removal of these images. Either way, explicitly making it a policy is going to dilute the "we don't know anythihng about it" argument. anthony 警告 16:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose both measures. I feel that there's no reason to bow to squeamish folks. --Improv 05:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So if the goatse article was good, and the image were GFDL, we could include the goatse image on the front page? anthony 警告 16:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • We could, although I'd hope we'd normally pick things to frontpage that are better and have useful content. Given the changed options, actually I don't oppose all the proposals anymore. --Improv 03:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upon reflection I'm more amenable to CXI's suggestion that:

• Or all potentially disturbing or graphic images contain a {{graphicimage}} or {{disturbingimage}} boilerplate. This has the advantage of being easier to modify, as well as Special:Whatlinkshere.
• Thumbnails to images as tagged above would be replaced by a thumbnail containing the text "this image may offend some users, click here to display" or similar.

This might actually protect content from what is now a de facto censorship by the admins. We can vote a delete-disturbing-images policy down, but without a positive policy in place to protect those images they'll still be deleted. Note that this policy was proposed after Image:Vaginal_syphilis.jpg was removed, and not before.

I like the idea of a prefrences option too, but that sounds like it will take a lot of coding, and be a further strain on an already heavily-taxed system. — Clarknova 16:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to stand in favor of the account preference option, if such a thing were technically feasible from a coding point of view. If implementing such a feature into the MediaWiki program is not an option at this stage, then I think using the {{graphicimage}} or {{disturbingimage}} boilerplates that CXI suggested would be sufficient. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about political correctness, manners, good taste, or a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a factual encyclopedic reference. You would never see images that "may be considered offensive by some viewers" removed from paper encylopedias, the Guinness Book of Records (which contains some particularly unpleasant photos) or other similar publications, so why attempt to censor them from Wikipedia? A courteous disclaimer/warning is more than enough protection, IMHO. - Vaelor 17:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can empathize at least to some degree with the purpose of a policy on this topic. But I am more concerned by how widely a policy could be applied. Consider the words "all" and "potentially disturbing."

I think decisions on such images should be handled case by case. In other words, nothing here has convinced me that any policy is needed. Maurreen 17:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You would never see images that "may be considered offensive by some viewers" removed from paper encylopedias Are you kidding me? Offensive images are removed from paper encyclopedias all the time. Maybe it's just a US thing, but I really don't believe that there is a mainstream paper encyclopedia which shows an up-close photograph of a vulva. Playboy doesn't even show that, you're talking about something which is considered too offensive for the less hard-core porn magazines! anthony 警告 18:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I might remind everyone that the subject at hand deals with images such as vaginal syphilis and corpses, not pictures of body parts that some people consider to be pornographic simply because of the body part they depict. Thus the clitoris and vulva discussion seems a bit misplaced right here, but I understand that there are some "decency" warriors that won't accept the wiki process until it conforms to their views. While we're on the topic, though: No, Anthony, we don't need an inline photo of the goatse.cx guy because we link to it right there. What is there to be gained from that picture? We expain what the site is, what the pic is, and link to it. There's no conceivable need to have it on wikipedia. The clitoris and vagina pictures are highly informative in a way only a picture can be, and there is an obvious reason for having pictures that the wikipedia community chooses: although there are perhaps billions of pictures of vaginas on the internet, a picture of a clitoris or vulva of high quality, portrayed clinically and factually, and under the control of wikipedians to alter/edit in good faith, is needed.

We link to a disclaimer on every page. It seems to me that, should an image be deemed wikipedia material, that image should not be singled out as offensive to some people and then not displayed inline or even on the site. It's inherently POV. What's the criteria for deciding what's offensive and what's not? Is there some kind of minimum number of offended people one needs to satisfy before a pic is deemed offensive? Is one person enough? Perhaps legal decisions should determine this. But then, legal decisions of what country? The only sensible and ethically consistent thing to do, IMHO, is to establish a user setting wherein one can turn off all article pictures and turn them into links. Above that, decisions should proceed on a case-by-case basis through specific polls. Timbo 18:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Restricting the subject to vaginal syphilis and corpses but not including other images which are widely considered to be pornographic is utterly POV and unacceptable. You've got to have a content-neutral policy which applies equally to all images. anthony 警告 18:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, but your judgement of including images of genitals in this class of "disturbing images" is all of a sudden NPOV? No, the only NPOV approach is to not treat images considered by some as offensive in any special manner. Some people find different _spellings_of_city_names_ offensive and disturbing. Either link or mark all images with a disclaimer, or none at all. I can't see that you've tried to describe this "content-neutral" policy that you advocate. — David Remahl 18:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never said that images of genitals are disturbing beyond the fact that they are offensive to many people. There's nothing POV about that. I don't think you need to treat all images equally in order to be NPOV, whether or not an image is offensive to people is an objective fact. As for my reference to there needing to be a "content-neutral" policy, I should add that there needs to be a content-neutral policy or no policy at all. At the moment the best policy is probably to just let people edit war over it until consensus is reached. anthony 警告 18:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's tough to have a content-neutral policy when the policy is content-specific. I brought up the distinction between murder and body parts because the policies discussed here are "not about images identified as pornographic." Timbo 18:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's tough then we should just get over that toughness or not have a policy at all. anthony 警告 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. No policy at all besides the NPOV ability to view wikipedia sans images. Timbo 19:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plus the ability to edit any page, of course. anthony 警告 19:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, though: No, Anthony, we don't need an inline photo of the goatse.cx guy because we link to it right there. What is there to be gained from that picture? We expain what the site is, what the pic is, and link to it. It's my understanding that the purpose of this policy is to link to offensive images, not to remove them completely. Why do we need to include a photo of a vulva inline? What is gained from this? Yes, we are "bow[ing] to squeamish folks", but we're doing the same by leaving out an inline image of goatse. There is a lot to be "gained" from the goatse image which cannot be gained by a simple description. When I first saw that image (damn slashdot link) I was repulsed to the point that I have significantly changed my opinion on questions like whether or not you can actively harm someone through something as simple as an image. That can't be described in mere words. The goatse image is highly informative in a way only a picture can be. And I don't use those same words to mock you, it's exactly the same situation except for a matter of degree. although there are perhaps billions of pictures of vaginas on the internet, a picture of a clitoris or vulva of high quality, portrayed clinically and factually, and under the control of wikipedians to alter/edit in good faith, is needed No one here has talked about removing images from Wikipedia. We have discussed linking to them rather than displaying them inline. We link to a disclaimer on every page. Really? Where? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. Oh, there it is. I don't see how that matters, though. If we put a tiny link at the bottom of the page which links to a page which links to a page which says that Wikipedia may contain child porn, that doesn't justify our intentional inclusion of child porn, neither legally nor morally. It seems to me that, should an image be deemed wikipedia material, that image should not be singled out as offensive to some people and then not displayed inline or even on the site. It's inherently POV. Only to the extent that all articles with images are inherently POV, because an article can't possibly include every image which is remotely related. But it seems to me you're begging the question, because we still need to determine whether or not an image is wikipedia material. Who deems an image wikipedia material? What's the criteria for deciding what's offensive and what's not? That ones pretty simple. If it offends people, then it's offensive. Is there some kind of minimum number of offended people one needs to satisfy before a pic is deemed offensive? Is one person enough? I'd suggest that we look to the standards of other encyclopedias. One person is not enough. Perhaps legal decisions should determine this. But then, legal decisions of what country? We certainly should be following the laws of Florida and the United States, unless we intend to move our servers. Any other laws need to be taken on a case by case basis, based on what we're likely to lose by breaking the law and what we lose by following the law. The only sensible and ethically consistent thing to do, IMHO, is to establish a user setting wherein one can turn off all article pictures and turn them into links. Above that, decisions should proceed on a case-by-case basis through specific polls. I'm mainly in agreement with that. But polls aren't necessary. Wikipedia doesn't run on polls, it runs on consensus. We need to find a solution which is acceptable to everyone. I still haven't heard a reason why the image of the vulva in vulva and clitoris needs to be displayed inline, but if I do I'd try to come up with a solution which addresses that concern as well as the concerns of everyone else. anthony 警告 18:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The goatse.cx discussion is moot since it's not GFDL, but as a hypothetical let's probe it further. (No pun intended). If it were GFDL, and someone were to put up the stretched-anus picture, I think there should be a discussion and resolution on the talk page, not a decision handed down from some policy. In that sense, we're operating on the locus of individual POV that also forms all articles and everything here on the wiki. I can't think of a way to avoid that. Perhaps I should clarify my point, then : we should not make that policy and thus legitimate a specific POV. The difference between goatse and vulva is one of degree, perhaps; the wikipedia community would hopefully decide that the goatse image isn't encyclopedic enough to be on wikipedia, but the vulva picture undoubtedly is. You may take offense to having a vagina picture "in your face," whereas I take offense to seeing it removed by people who think they represent the common good of wikipedia. (I can't think of a reason the vulva picture is offensive other than that it just is, and I find that highly offensive and POV.) Offense is not necessarily reconcilable, and as such we need a policy of either the choice of linking to all images or not. So in short, if you've got a gripe with the vulva, don't make a policy out of it. Timbo 19:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The goatse.cx discussion is moot since it's not GFDL Not completely. We have plenty of non-free images in articles and even on the front page. If it were GFDL, and someone were to put up the stretched-anus picture, I think there should be a discussion and resolution on the talk page, not a decision handed down from some policy. I agree. I brought up the goatse image in response to Improv's statement that "there's no reason to bow to squeamish folks." That seemed to suggest to me that we should have a policy of including any image regardless of whether or not it is offensive. The difference between goatse and vulva is one of degree, perhaps; the wikipedia community would hopefully decide that the goatse image isn't encyclopedic enough to be on wikipedia, but the vulva picture undoubtedly is. I think both are encyclopedic enough to be in Wikipedia. I also think they both offend too many people to include them inline in an article. Offense is not necessarily reconcilable, and as such we need a policy of either the choice of linking to all images or not. That's where I disagree. To quote you, I think there should be a discussion and resolution on the talk page, not a decision handed down from some policy. anthony 警告 19:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we've arrived at somewhat of a common ground. However, the dispute over vagina pictures is potentiall irreconcilable because what you propose (many variations of not having the image inline) is offensive to me, and what I propose (leaving the picture there) is offensive to you. There isn't necessarily a compromise to be made if two people have two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Anything can be offensive to anybody. Thus, while we may have irreconcilable differences, the course of action should be dictated by the overall decision of the community. Although they should be avoided at all costs, there are some times when no compromise will be satisfactory to everybody, and even though the minority will feel shafted, the majority opinion must decided what happens in these matters (if anything is going to happen). However, that's an unsatisfactory way to establish policy! This whole talk of "graphic" and "disturbing" is best left out of NPOV policy. Thus Chmod's proposal is the best. Timbo 19:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this little debate has brought up a very good point that I'm inclined to strongly concur with - the matter of what sort of images are considered offensive by how many people is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to be completely neutral/factual/NPOV. If I find a picture of the goatse guy offensive, that's nothing more than my opinion. If a thousand people find it offensive, that's still just opinion. And what if I found pictures of an oak tree offensive? And I could round up a thousand other people to say they agreed? Would we start censoring all graphics depicting plant life off Wikipedia by policy? If we start removing/hiding/blocking things that some people may not like, we're opening up a huge can of worms for anybody with enough backing to come and dictate policy. What happens when we get a large group of a religious faction logging on and voting that they all find images of other religious groups' symbols offensive?! Granted, this is an extreme hypothetical, but it's an example of what could potentially happen when we start letting user opinion dictate what can and can't be shown on Wikipedia on a site-wide scale. The very nature of Wikipedia allows for people to remove themselves articles they find offensive, and for people who disagree to reinstate them. That's what makes Wikipedia what it is. If we say "At this point in time, X number of people agreed that this topic was offensive, and henceforth it is banned on this site!", then you lose that democracy. People who disagree will still post "offensive" things, and then more time/effort/resources will be required to police the new rule, and before you know it Wikipedia is charging for editor membership to cover costs and to reduce the number of users logging in just to post pictures of a vulva or the goatse guy, and, well... you get the picture.

As much as the concept of viewing Wikipedia with no text or images is amusing to me (a site with over 400,000 blank white pages?! Egad!), I think chmod's suggestion for implementing a user account preference for blocking images and/or text from the site is by far the most logical solution. If you think that you might be offended by some little pictures that may be somewhere on this site, then you can effectively "NetNanny" or "CyberPatrol" the site with these account preferences. Likewise, if you want Wikipedia to be available to your children to study World War II for their school assignment, without them looking up pictures of genitalia as soon as you leave the room, this feature would be available. And in turn, your personal feelings/beliefs/opinions about what may be offensive to you or your family will not ruin/detract from/inconvenience my Wikipedia experience in the process. - Vaelor 06:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anthony: Some problems with only linking images from those articles:

• POV. Linking those images, but not images of feet, hair or blue sky is POV and therefore in violation of the basic Wikipedia principle.
• Less accommodating to readers. Why should they have to click an extra time to see the image? When I'm interested about a subject, I expect to be able to flip to the right page and immediately see an image of it. I do not want to dig through the text of the article looking for an obfuscated link.

— David Remahl 19:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linking those images, but not images of feet, hair or blue sky is POV and therefore in violation of the basic Wikipedia principle. Not to any more of an extent than everything in an article is intrinsically POV. But if you would like to make a good faith argument for linking any of these images, then I don't see a problem with linking them. If you try to say that people are offended by a photo of a blue sky I would suspect you're acting in bad faith and should be banned from Wikipedia, though. Less accommodating to readers. Why should they have to click an extra time to see the image? I think we've answered that question quite clearly. Because they are offensive to people. But if you insist on the fact that clicking your mouse button is too terrible an inconvenience, then I suppose we could code up Wikipedia to make it a preference. Anything marked [[LinkedImage:foo]] would be linked or displayed inline according to your preference. In the mean time, I guess we've got to fight over which is a greater inconvenience, clicking your mouse or going into your browser preferences and turning off automatic display of images, then manually clicking on every image you want to view. anthony 警告 19:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't see where you've described why it should even be a concern for the encyclopaedia what people tend to consider offensive. But sure, if people want to view the encyclopaedia without images or text, then I don't have a problem with that. I'll even volunteer to implement the functionality, if it turns out it's a desired feature. — David Remahl 19:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because we're an encyclopedia, not a shock site. We shouldn't be offensive for the sake of being offensive, which is what it seems the vast majority of people who are not willing to link to the images are suggesting. anthony 警告 13:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that links to such images is more accommodating. As this is a volunteer encyclopedia, we don't want to chase away people who might be genuinely surprised to see such images—especially those not normally included in an encyclopedia. When a significant portion of English-speaking people would be shocked by the inclusion of an image, it's reasonable to simply put it behind a link. This doesn't destroy the valuable content, but allows people to see what they would like to see. I think Anthony's proposal is good because it's not needlessly legalistic, but it articulates the principle well. Cool Hand Luke 07:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A facet of dispute resolution?

I essentially agree with Neutrality and/or anthony. Case-by-case come to consensus on contentious images. Some rough guidelines should be drawn up - outlining steps to resolve disputes over contentious images. I think it is folly to suggest that all images are acceptable to be displayed inline in Wikipedia articles - no matter the article content. As it is, generally article content is kept factual and non-graphic (non-offensive) - this is by consensus and dispute resolution. I think the impact images have warrants a separate policy document to help Wikipedians solve disputes over contentious images (for example, be prepared for some images not to be displayed inline (or indeed be deleted) if that is the general consensus). zoney ♣ talk 20:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added new policy proposal

My reasoning is that if you are going to look up articles like vaginal syphilis, then you're probably aware that an image might be there of (gasp!) vaginal syphilis! I mean, really. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually no. Encyclopedias don't normally have content that can be found very objectionable. I certainly think we should offer such content to those that want it—and this is one of wikipedia's advantages: we have unlimited space for linking off-article images. But it would be rather a disservice for atracting new users and editors to include, say, in-line images of Harlequin type ichthyosis. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we encourage people to use Random Page, so the expectation/fair warning argument doesn't entirely hold. Chris vLS 08:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clear criteria are critical

I think there are three questions here: 1) What are the guidelines for putting an image behind a link? 2) What are the mechanics for putting an image behind a link? 3) Is this a problem worth solving?

What are the guidelines for putting an image behind a link?

This is the critical question, and is not addressed clearly by any of the proposed policies.

Applying the category system to images could allow this to be accomplished more objectively. Many images will elicit the "I wish I hadn't just seen that," response in some people but not others, but most images will unambiguously either contain or not contain a category of content that some people find objectionable. For example, determining whether an image is a photographic deptiction of human genitalia is usually an objective process, whereas determining whether a particular image of human genitalia is encyclopedic, pornographic, or whatever, is not an objective process.

Further, this puts the onus for categorizing objectionable content on those who object to it, whether it be Category: Diseased anatomy, Category: Explicit death, Category: Nazi propaganda, or Category: Heliocentric diagrams. The rest of us can ignore this categorizations, since they only appear on the image page, not when viewed in the article.

Moreover, this allows categorization by degree. Category: Exposed breasts could be broken down into Category: Cleavage, no nipple and Category: Exposed nipples if those who objected to some parts of the breast but not others were willing to put for the effort to do so.

Now, as each user can add an article to his or her watchlist, I would enable each user to add an image category to a "linklist" in their user preferences. If the default is an empty linklist, then the experience of those who wish to see all images is unchanged. Once the code is in place, all effort in categorizing images and modifying user prefs in placed on those who wish to protect themselves from seeing a particular type of image. The person who wishes to see all images can do so, with no additional effort, while the person who wishes who wishes to shield themselves from political maps of the Indian subcontinent, Soviet propaganda, surgical photographs, and circumcised penises could manage it, if it was worth it to them. Shimmin 17:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Without consensus on the answer, the policy will be impossible to implement. We need the basic catch phrases for editors to use when deciding to link or not to link. These need to be flexible, but sufficiently focused – the policy can’t be “We know it when we see it.”

As the above discussion shows, “offensive”, “pornographic”, or “sexually explicit” are very difficult to define in a consensus manner. They also stray from the examples originally listed as the impetus for this policy. Even more elaborate definitions of pornography frequently collapse in implementation. So I think we would be very hard pressed to invent a neutral, international, consensus standard on anything involving sex.

I would suggest the following criterion:

• Highly explicit images of violence, death, injury, or illness.

This criterion is fairly objective. 'Highly explicit' is the most ambiguous term, but it is far less subjective than 'graphic' or 'offensive' (or even 'notable'). Most importantly, it is one that relies on the only the slightest point of view, if you can even call it that: that is, that violence, death, and pain are disturbing and that we would like a moment of pause before choosing to view them. I think we can build consensus around that. Certainly, it has a better chance than 'offensive' — especially if we are trying to use this feature to classify types of sexual content.

Last, but not least: this criterion tracks very closely to the original intent of this whole discussion, as stated by GeneralPatton.

To take the criterion for a test drive: This criterion would suggest linking Vaginal_syphyllis and a picture of a beheading in Iraq, which seem to have a consensus. It would not link vulva, about which there is no consensus. Oak trees and other ad absurdum examples listed above would stay as they are. Goatse would be open to debate, but I think after Talk page discussion, editors would link it as an highly explicit image of an injury.

Another alternative would be to offer a full content management system, with several levels of image categories and preferences, e.g. show/hide explicit anatomical images, expilict violent images, explicit sexual images, etc. I think that consensus around the levels would be very difficult to reach and even more difficult to implement.

What are the mechanics for putting an image behind a link?

I think this is well addressed by many of the above suggestions.

Is this a problem worth solving, or is it very rare?

Given the fairly narrow consensus criterion above, do we really have that many of these images? It would be sensible to investigate before proceeding.

I'll sleep on this. If this criterion gets positive comments, or if it still makes sense in the morning, I will add it as an alternative policy above.

Chris vLS 08:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Oak trees and other ad absurdum examples listed above would stay as they are." - My point here was only to to give weight to my question, which is essentially, by what consensus do we determine what is considered "offensive", or, by your suggestion, "highly explicit"? Is it a unanimous vote? A majority rule? A preset number of complainers? Is it when one person claims to find the content dubious? When ten people do? A hundred? Or will it simply be much like the concept of VfD, whereby the deciding factor will be based on whoever happens to notice the vote taking place at the time, and decides to get involved and throw their two cents worth in, and then based on whether seven or more of those dozen odd folks vote in favor of "Delete" (or in this case, "Censor") instead of "Keep", the motion is passed? If Wikipedia is going to become a medium of censorship based on what some people might consider to be objectionable material, I'd just like to know who gets to make the decision about what I do and don't have the right to view at my own discretion. Personally (and I know I've agreed with three separate suggestions in as many edits here), I think the most valid point brought up here so far has been that if somebody is searching Wikipedia for "vaginal syphilis", they should be prepared for the possibility that they might see an image of vaginal syphilis. Perhaps the case in point here is not about an account option for blocking images, but simply a code tweak that only permits articles that do not contain inline images to come up when somebody clicks Random page. That way, people only see what they should expect to see, and nobody "stumbles across" a graphic image they may not be prepared for... - Vaelor 11:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand. I should have been more clear. I agree with Zoney above when he says that editors come to consensus on talk pages and dispute resolution on these topics. Right now, there are only two options, include or exclude, with the general criteria of Wikipedia:Profanity, which tenatively guides to exclude images that may be "illegal" and to "avoid images that could be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers, but again, not at the expense of accuracy". If we add a third option, we should have a guideline as to when it is used. —Chris vLS 16:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(As an aside, I am not sure that Goatse passes the 'legal for download' criterion of the current policy, especially where current policy says: "Note that laws on "obscenity" vary around the world, and Wikipedia should therefore err on the side of safety." —Chris vLS 16:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, I hope you don't mean we should err on the side of complying with the most restrictive laws in any jurisdiction? Intrigue 00:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what is required legally or by the policy. Seems like the track record of how the community makes these calls has kept us out trouble to date. —Chris vLS 05:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This would be a highly POV policy, as it would declare that images of violence, death, injury, or illness can be bad, but nothing else can. anthony 警告 13:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it quite as bad as that sounds, since the idea is simply to guide editors in taking an image out of inline — not to comprehesively define 'badness.' Right now, tentative policy directs us to use editor consensus to declare images bad because they are "offensive to typical readers," which allows for all possible reasons for offensiveness.

The question now is to define whether there some images that 1) meet the goals of a perfect article, 2) should not be excluded for outright offensiveness or illegality, but 3) are so consistently shocking that the typical viewer would appreciate an opportunity to choose whether or not he or she is confronted with it.

The above is an attempt to find a consensus guideline for such a category. That said, I imagine that enlightened consensus would place other images behind links from time to time. —Chris vLS 16:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At least here in the US (which is a significant portion of Wikipedia readership), images of sex are generally more offensive than violence, death, or injury. To say that one has more potential for being shocking than the other is not only POV, it's probably incorrect. anthony 警告 12:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a shockingly poor idea. A significant number of people find women's faces offensive, and feel very strongly that they should always be covered. This isn't a hypothetical. How long do you think it will be before a (potentially large) number of people (who are, in good faith offended by depiction of women's unvieled faces) come here to ask that we remove them? Would we do it? If not, why not? Intrigue 00:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is very problematic. But it is current policy, and it actually works better than I (or, it appears, you) would expect. The veiled face movement has yet to overwhelm us. If they did, current policy would say that women's faces are not "offensive" to "typical Wikipedia readers". Chris vLS 05:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, helpful. And a "typical" Wikipedian reader is? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the current policy is very tricky (which is why I proposed a very limited but objective standard for linking), but what would we replace it with? That said, it seems that editors' consensus on offensiveness has worked to date . . . — Chris vLS 05:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with linking to unveiled faces instead of inlining them. I think that falls into a "typical" Wikipedian reader. anthony 警告 13:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we should link to unveiled faces, because some people (perhaps typical Wikipedia readers) find them offensive? This is so obviously enshrining a massive POV as editorial policy that it would ruin us. Intrigue 21:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that if someone seriously objects to these images because they are offensive that we should link to them, yes. I don't see how there's anything POV about that. Please explain how it is POV. anthony 警告 22:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh, so if one person seriously objects to the Republican Party logo because it's offensive, we should link to it? Anthony, you're promoting the wholesale and widespread censorship of Wikipedia based on the strictest, most conservative and most regressive "moral codes" in the world. That's not what Wikipedia is about - at least, not the Wikipedia I signed up to edit. --FCYTravis 08:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that anyone trying to abuse Wikipedia like this would be acting in bad faith. In any case, I don't see linking to an image as censorship. anthony 警告 12:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What if someone seriously complains that they find text offensive? Should it be taken out of the article and linked to? I'm not kidding. Not only are you suggesting that Wikipedia should not feature women's faces, among the many other things that people here and there find offensive, but ultimately you would have to accept that your reasoning would allow the removal of large portions of text. One person's meat is so very often another's poison that it could hardly not be so. Having said that, I'm astonished that those who defend the clitoris picture oppose stretched anus pictures. All their arguments for the former tend to apply to the latter. As for the "typical Wikipedia" reader, I think that if you want Americopedia, that's fine, but I like a more global outlook. If you were arguing for the linking of images that are grossly offensive to many, regardless of ethnicity, we might be going somewhere with this. I don't think there should be censorship, but I think the argument that no censorship at all leads to non-inclusiveness is quite strong. I think the notion that most stick to is that it is right or wrong to censor rather than considering the broader question of whether, right or wrong, we should try to be more broadly inclusive.Dr Zen 05:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which is the beauty of a surrounding offensive images/text with tags, allowing the user to decide whether image/text should be inlined or available at the end of a link. Unfortunately, there could be a very large number of categories, each with categories challenging to understand to some people. Unfortunately, the current method involving placing "offensive" images in articles, and taking them out again. Similary with text deemed "offensive". Tagging and allowing users to link is better than losing the text and images completely. User:nereocystis 00:52:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ultimately you would have to accept that your reasoning would allow the removal of large portions of text. I think there's a big difference with text. Images jump out immediately. Text is much more easily ignored. We commonly have spoiler warnings for text. This is reasonable, because the liklihood of inadvertantly focussing your attention on the bottom of the article first and reading the text there is extremely thin. A spoiler warning for an image would make little sense, though. anthony 警告 14:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response to the new proposals: GeneralPatton's new, clear demarcations make each of the policies more implementable and get out of the problems of vague criteria that worried me (as well as Intrigue and Ta bu shi da yu), so I am probably just going to vote on the new propositions. My biggest concern now is whether this is a real problem. Without data that tell me that there are a lot of problematic images, are we just opening up more to argue about with little net benefit? —Chris vLS 05:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, digging into the ICRA has raised a new concern, see below. —Chris vLS 14:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about a NORANDOM category or tag that prevents an article from coming up with a random page press? It could be liberally applied. Intrigue 22:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Probably something we should have anyway. anthony 警告 22:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really, talking about just blocking "all images of murder, injury, or illness" is far too vague. By this wording, an image of a papercut or someone with a cold would need to be blocked. Placing Highly explicit before the phrase makes it a much more sensible policy. Mr. Billion 19:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does the ICRA vocabulary violate NPOV?

The ICRA vocabulary [3] (thanks, anthony for the link) has objective tags, such as "Violence/Killing of human beings," but the questionnaire for violence also includes three possible "context" qualifiers:

• appears in an artistic context and is suitable for young children
• appears in an educational context and is suitable for young children
• appears in a medical context and is suitable for young children
• appears in a sports context

It seems to me that we are out of the frying pan and into the fire with the "suitable for young children" qualifier. —Chris vLS 14:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The ICRA is inherently and massively POV. There is no way to salvage it. I oppose ANY and ALL attempts to get it onto the Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a massive lurch towards one POV. 'Suitable for young children' in whose opinion? 'Artistic' in whose opinion? 'Medical'? Don't get me started on circumcision. Bloodsports anyone? Besides, this just isn't an issue. There isn't a major problem with these kinds of images. Intrigue 21:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It could be suitable for young children in the opinion of the person adding the tag. Anything in Wikipedia would appear in an educational and not artistic or medical context. Whether or not there is a major problem with these kinds of images is really something that we don't know until we look at the images and tag them. I think there probably is a major problem. Just off the top of my head I can think of 5 or 6 images that should be tagged. anthony 警告 22:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason we have to use the subjective tags. Personally I think they're obvious enough that we can use them, and I think that will be proven during the trial period, where the templates don't actually implement any ICRA tags. But if people really consider them to be inherently POV, we can always leave the context parts out. I'll ask Dante again. What is inherently POV about ICRA? Can't we address these issues directly? PICS is extensible to where we can tag anything we want. If you have a problem with ICRA, why not give us an alternative scheme? anthony 警告 22:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's clearly POV, Anthony - who defines "suitable for young children?" You? Me? A majority vote? What if I think the logo of the Republican Party is not suitable for young children? Can I call for it to be blocked too? Don't you see the can of worms you're opening here? There is no objective way to define "suitable for young children." --FCYTravis 08:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It has the potential to be used in a POV manner, perhaps, but that doesn't mean the rating system itself is POV. Are wikis POV because anyone can delete the logo of the Republican Party? Also you seem to misunderstand the system. The logo of the Republican party does not contain any objectionable content, so it doesn't matter if it's suitable for young children. The context only comes into place if the image objectively contains certain content in the first place. Furthermore, this doesn't block anything, it just tags content and lets people decide what they want to do. Finally, as I said, we don't have to use the context tags at all. anthony 警告 12:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about swasticas and Nazi imagery? A lot of people consider them offensive even though you could argue that you don't think they have objectionable content. They do for me. So does the logo of the republican party. So we should link to all of these things that stand for things some people find offensive? Please. No. Intrigue 16:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We were talking about ICRA. I don't see anything about linking. anthony 警告 13:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought that it was being proposed that we replace in-line versions of 'unsuitable' images with links. Have I misunderstood? Intrigue 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been suggested for some images, on completely different pages, and is discussed in one of the proposals way up near the top of the page, but this section of the page is talking about ICRA. anthony 警告 03:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response to anthony: But if people really consider them to be inherently POV, we can always leave the context parts out . . . What is inherently POV about ICRA? If I understand the ICRA system correctly, there are three possible levels of message we can send using the system:

1. May, but is not known to, contain unsuitable content.

2. Is known to contain Violence/Killing of human beings and appears in an educational context and is suitable for young children.

3. Is known to contain Violence/Killing of human beings and does not appear in an educational context and is not suitable for young children.

By leaving the context tag out, we are labelling our content as (3) unsuitable. The 'encyclopedia exmeption' of the ICRA will not kick in and the filters will treat it the same as unmitigated porn. The problem is that I don't think that message 2 or 3 is NPOV, because, as the above discussion shows, there is no consensus on whether or not the anatomical pictures are ok for young kids or not. (Indeed, how young is "young"?).—Chris vLS 22:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand ICRA. Leaving out the statement that the content appears in an educational context and is suitable for young children is not the same as saying that it does not appear in an educational context and is not suitable for young children. Besides, just because you can come up with a case where there is no consensus doesn't mean we shouldn't use the tags in situations where there is consensus. Personally I think the cases where there is no consensus are few and far between. In those cases, we just leave out the context statement. No big deal. anthony 警告 00:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at [4] it seems to work as I expected. Filter users choose to block all violence or allow violence with educational context. I agree with you that we should avoid a scheme just because consensus is sometimes hard. My concern is that the "suitable" policy is not NPOV. I tried to use the lack of consensus as a means to prove that it is not NPOV. —Chris vLS 07:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's one implementation, and it should be noted that one implementation is to not view any images which aren't tagged. The policy is simply that you can write NPOV things on templates and add those templates to images. There's nothing POV about it. anthony 警告 13:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OMG. Just looked at the thing in detail. It's a nightmare of POVs. I can't see how there would ever be consensus on any of these except within very small groups of people. Intrigue 15:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't see how there would be consensus on whether or not an image depicts male genitals? anthony 警告 03:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Michelangelo's David, Donatello's David? They both depict male genitals. Do you want to filter them? No, I do not think that there would be consensus on even the (apparently) most simple cases. Intrigue 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it is unambiguous as to whether those are male genitals ;-). But whether we should tag it as "suitable" or as "unsuitable" (e.g., leaving the tag off) is the place where its tough. Chris vLS 21:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said we should tag it as "suitable" or "unsuitable". I think we should tag it as depicting male genitals, and let the user decide whether or not to block it based on that. anthony 警告 14:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's the point exactly. You are not just describing it, you are censoring it for a group of people who don't control their internet connections including children, library and other public terminal users, potentially workplace users and others who don't read the small print of the software that they are using. It is still censorship, it is still POV, it is still wrong for you or I to make these decisions for people. Intrigue 02:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the male genitals one is pretty obvious. Off-hand I cannot think of a portrayal of male genitals I would consider unsuitable for children to see, but obviously there are on the other extreme people who think that *no* depiction of male genitals is suitable for children. Come to the middle ground and yes, you'll get people umming and ahing over this or that depiction. Is a picture of an ungelded stallion suitable? How about (to move to female sexual characteristics) a breast-feeding woman? Standards vary vastly. Some of us practise covering up of the body at home whereas others do not, so the context of a child's previous exposure to nudity will tend to vary greatly. A rating system that says "suitable for children" is not really honest, it's assuming that there is a common agreement on what is and is not suitable for children. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are not the ones censoring. Considering that not tagging at all is enough to get us banned from many of those places you've listed I think that it is abundantly clear that all we're doing is providing information. anthony 警告 14:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comment above, Anthony: we should stick to straightforward, objective classifications. But the ICRA vocabulary and the software that uses it doesn't work that way. Absence of the "suitable" tag means that you have tagged it, and the software will treat it, as "unsuitable." This is why I decided to vote against Proposition A. --Chris vLS 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libraries

A point of view

I read this in someone's vote comment for proposition A, and it stimulated some thought. "An overdue idea. We don't want libraries or schools to start blocking Wikipedia because of images."

It forced me to ask three questions. "Do we not want libraries and schools to block Wikipedia?", "Why do we not want them to block Wikipedia", and "How far are we prepared to go to avoid being blocked?"

On the first, I'm not convinced that we should cater for the policies of public institutions. Wikipedia may be banned in China, for all I know, but does that mean that we should label political issues to enable the Chinese government to censor certain entries? Articles prepared to Wikipedia standards about the state of Israel, Judaism and Islam would probably be unwelcome in Iran, should we label such articles for the Ayatollahs? Similarly there's a vast range of public policy related to education and libraries in different countries. A library in Scunthorpe may permit free access to Wikipedia, whereas a library in Gobblers Knob, Punxsutawney may block the article on Scunthorpe because the name of the town is considered indecent. It isn't Wikipedia's business to encourage this kind of idiocy.

What do we lose by having some of the more puritanical institutions block Wikipedia? Offhand, I can't think of anything. Are we going to label the evolution articles, too? Some school boards would love to mandate the blocking or labelling of such material in the manner of the repressive textbook laws of some of the redneck US states.

On balance, it seems to me, we have more to gain by refusing to have anything to do with this madness. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is about free, accurate, and neutral information. Some people will want to censor us because that they think that some information is not sutable for people to find out. There is nothing we can do about that, and we shouldn't pander to them. The best way we can overcome censorship is by building the greatest encylopedia the world has ever seen. That way there will be a demand for our "product". If libraries block us, library users will kick up a fuss. As for schools, IMO middle schools and down should block us. And they will start blocking us in droves soon and this has nothing whatsoever to do with content. Wikis allow anyone to edit any page - including talk pages like this one. Children are simply too vunerable to be allowed to chat to adults unsupervised. We will be blocked for the same reason that chat rooms are blocked. And this IMO is a good thing. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. We don't want to pander to the lowest common denominator in terms of what information we think is suitable for others. Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with Tony in the broadest sense and I don't want to see a policy change. However, I feel strongly that actually we should consider all views (if not pander to them). The wisdom of the NPOV policy is that it is inclusive. It does not suggest an editorial line that is liberal, orthodox, Western. Theresa, you say: "Some people will want to censor us because that they think that some information is not sutable for people to find out." Yes, we call them deletionists! We already do judge content on one context or another. There's no high horse here. If you believe an encyclopaedia is less good with an article about, say, some kid who hopes to become a writer, you might equally believe it is less good with a picture of a vagina. Whether schools should block us is a different matter (perhaps an article-only no-edit fork would be a good idea for them? But perhaps this would encourage exclusionism because if a fork existed for that purpose, it would be sure to face arguments over content). The vulnerability of children is yet another (perhaps you are aware that one argument censors use is that "pornographic" or "shocking" images may have a deleterious effect on the "vulnerable" -- you make the very same argument but simply draw the line elsewhere).Dr Zen 01:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very much an inclusionist. If a subject is so trivial that it is not possible to verify it, then obviously we cannot write neutrally about it, and so cannot have it in - but vagina pics are very different. How can removal of a verifiable, and factually informative picture make an encylopedia better? I cannot conceive of a person who honestly believes that removing a fact from an encylopedia will make it better. There are plenty of no edit forks already. Hundreds of sites that copywikipedia and are not editable fulfill that role. As for your last comment - I think you have misunderstood me. What I am saying is that schools are going to block this site whatever. That is nothing we can do about that and there is nothing we should do about that. There is a children's wikipedia in developement at wikibooks btw which will overcome those problems as it will not be editable. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can removal of a verifiable, and factually informative picture make an encylopedia better? In the case of these types of images, because it broadens the scope of readers and contributors. If you started including goatse images in Wikipedia articles, I think you'd quickly find the number of Wikipedians start dropping, and there would probably be a successful fork. I cannot conceive of a person who honestly believes that removing a fact from an encylopedia will make it better. Take a look at VFD some time. You'll find many of them. In fact, with such a broad statement as you're making I even disagree with you myself. There are many facts which don't belong in an encyclopedia. Removing Jimbo's phone number from Jimmy Wales would make the encyclopedia better. What I am saying is that schools are going to block this site whatever. That is nothing we can do about that and there is nothing we should do about that. I agree with you on that one. In the United States I'd even extend it to any school which has minors and doesn't have parental permission. I'm not sure who it was who mentioned libraries, but I don't think libraries should have any restrictions on what websites I can view. I believe in the United States at least it's illegal for a public library to censor content. You might ask what about libraries inside of schools, but I think this is a much different situation as schooling is mandatory here in the US. anthony 警告 14:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is an article about goatse (and I don't see why there should be; it's a trivial bit of slashdotism) then it should probably have a picture of Mr Goatse in all his glory, subject to copyright. I honestly cannot see why this coould be expected to drive people away from wikipedia. Proper labelling of the article would tell people what to expect. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we have an article on Goatse, and the image would certainly fall under fair use (not to mention that we could probably get permission from the copyright holder to use it). I'm not sure what you mean by proper labelling of the article. Should we include a disclaimer on every single link? anthony 警告 17:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think every link requires a disclaimer. I do think links should be informatively labelled. "goatse" by itself isn't very good, you wouldn't know what you were getting until you got there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In what sense wouldn't you know what you're getting? In some way that you do know what you're getting when you go to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse or clitoris or Nicholas Berg or woman or vaginal syphilis? I suppose there are two levels there. Some people don't know what these things look like, and some people just don't expect that an encyclopedia would have an image of them. But one way or another, I think there are a lot of people who aren't going to know what they're getting on any of these articles. anthony 警告 17:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mean in the sense that the term "goatse" is obscure gibberish to the uninitiated. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have a lot to lose by not respecting people's values here. Quite frankly, there are some people who will find a given image offensive, and do not want their children seeing said image. To tell such a person that their children must look at a given offensive image or be discrimated against by having a sub-optimal Wiki experience is imposing a moral standard down that person's throat. And what about making Wiki a place that is safe for workplace, cyber cafe, or other public place viewing. The only reasonable compromise is to categorize images, and all them to be blocked. Possibly on a user-by-user basis. Samboy 09:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tony Sidaway. Censoring anything is firstly inherently POV (this includes images), and secondly it would set an unfortunate precedent to allowing censorship of a broader variety. Wikipedia is supposed to be free content, and catering to certain institutions is ridiculous. If we cater to public schools in the US, what's to stop us from catering to libraries? After that, it only follows that we should be catering to every institution that raises an objection, which would become cumbersome and pointless, and destroy what wikipedia stands for. I think if you want wikipedia to be NPOV censored, it will end up being an essentially "no content" encyclopedia. I'm sure there are articles in Brittanica that are considered offensive in some places. Let's not start censoring, it's only going to go awry. Besides, individual images can be decided on a case-by-case basis, like they already are. QED. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 03:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actual examples

I thought that it would make sense to consider actual examples. I have tried to apply the proposed ICRA vocabulary to see if it works. My conclusion is that we would have a hard time agreeing on the "appears in an educational context and is suitable for young children" tag for most of these images. I think we could come up with our own tags and in-lining/linking policy, but the ICRA suitability tags are very hard to use. Also, there don't appear to be that many images in the violence category.

• Violence

• Image of Nicholas Berg's beheading

Warning: extremely explicit picture of beheading: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Violence/Killing of human beings, not suitable for young children.

My comments: I think that we could come to consensus on this ICRA tag.

• Image of Holocaust victims

My warning: Warning: explicit picture of corpses:Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Violence/Killing of human beings, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be hard.

• Image of the beheading of Charles I

My warning: Warning: explicit picture of beheading: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Violence/Killing of human beings, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be tricky, but possible. Note that you see blood spurting several feet into the air, but it's a little crude, so the experience is nothing like the Berg picture.

• Image of Abu Ghraib corpse

My warning: Warning: explicit picture of corpse: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Violence/Blood and gore, human beings, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be tricky.

• Image of Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident

My warning: Warning: explicit picture of corpse: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Violence/Blood and gore, human beings, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be tricky.

• Pornography

• Image of 19th century pornographic woodcut

My warning: Warning: explicit pictures of woman sexually entwined with octopus: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/Explicit sexual acts, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be very hard.

• Image of sixty-nine position

My warning: Warning: explicit pictures of sex: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/Explicit sexual acts, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be very hard.

• Image of cowgirl position

My warning: Warning: explicit pictures of sex: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/Explicit sexual acts, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be very hard.

• Image of Vulva

My warning: Warning: explicit pictures of genitals: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/Female genitals, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be very hard.

• Image of Bondage

My warning: Warning: picture of woman in chains: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/None of the above, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be tricky.

• Image of Erotic art in Pompeii

My warning: Warning: explicit marble bas relief of sex: Image link

ICRA Tag: ICRA: Nudity and sexual material/None of the above, (suitable? not suitable?) for young children.

My comments: I think that consensus on the suitability tag would be tricky.

I think we could come up with our own tags and in-lining/linking policy, but the ICRA suitability tags are very hard to use. In any case, at least we have some more data to consider. --Chris vLS 20:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No Wikipedia articles should be considered suitable for young children. The language is too complex to be much use to most under-tens. The suitability tag should always be set to "no" if ICRA tags are adopted.

Maybe we need some actual examples of readers. I would not expect my paper encyclopedias, or google, to be freely usable by a small child. I would not recommend either to a prude (my old Britannica was one of my first sources of porn). I'm cool with all the above pictures, and I don't mind if my late-teenaged, internet-using kids see them. They're cool with the pictures, too, and they think it's okay for their ancient old dad to see them. Everybody's happy! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amen The bellman 03:47, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Just because you don't want Wiki to be an encyclopiedia to be usaed by young children doesn't mean that other people don't want this. Stop thinking that your morals are the only one that matters; you're making the same mistake the fundamentalist who tells you you're damned to hell unless you accept Christ makes. In both case, you're saying "My values matter, yours don't". The unmarked inclusion of all potentially offensive images is just as offensive as the censoring of all potentially offensive images. We need a way to mark these images. Samboy 09:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying "my values matter, yours don't". You do not know my values. I am saying "the only values that matter in a Wikipedia article are whether it's NPOV and encyclopedic." If I am likely to be offended or upset by any part of the content I don't have to look at it (as I've indicated, there are areas of Wikipedia of which that statement is true for me). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your tags are much better than the ICRA tags. Nereocystis 23:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Full frontal nudity discussion

Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? [5] Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 11:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that it's only immoral people who have problems with these pictures.--Jirate 16:21, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Jirate: Are you prepared to have Wikipedia become a de facto "porn site"?... Because it surely will, at the rate pornographic photos are creeping into the Wikipedia mainstream. Give it some thought, but don't take forever as that may be too late by then... IZAK 10:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What we are talking about is it being a porn site in your very particular use of the term, it's not a use I think is valid.--Jirate 14:15, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

I'm prepaired. I'm willing to let the possibillity loom rather than stiffle the whole project now based on FUD. Cavebear42 04:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, have you given some thought to producing your own fork of Wikipedia in which you will be the judge of what is and is not suitable for an encyclopedia? Since you seem to be certain that you can make judgements of this kind, and have shown yourself to have a foolproof way of telling whether a person is moral or not--obviously only immoral people disagree with you--you have an ideal opportunity to start a Wikipedia fork in which only moral people are permitted to edit and only suitable pictures are ever used. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony: Stick to the subject of full-frontal nudity and pornography and ask yourself if Wikipedia should turn into a porn site whenever the opportunity is there to "flash flesh" to embelish an article. Seems like "morality" is too abstract for some people, it's not astro-physics you know. IZAK 15:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sticking to the subject of what you describe as "full-frontal nudity", I ask myself whether Wikipedia should display such material. The answer I have decided upon is yes, it should, where the material in question enhances the encyclopedic nature of the article. You alternative question of whether Wikipedia should become a porn site is not relevant; there are no plans to turn Wikipedia into anything other than an encyclopedia. I do not recognise any link between morality and the decision to illustrate an article appropriately or not. I do not believe that the human body is intrinsically immoral. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amid all the pics that have come up in this debate, the only offensive thing I've seen is your repeated implication that I'm an immoral person for not being offended by nudity. I've seen no evidence that Wikipedia is becoming a porno site, or that nude pics are proliferating out of control. I am a moral person who lets morality guide everything I do, and I am not offended by pictures of ordinary human anatomy which 50% of the population shares and sees on a daily basis. I am not thusly offended because there is no rational reason to object to particular organs or biological systems which are normal, healthy parts of human physiology; I am no more offended by clitorises or testicles than I am by the integumentary system or kidneys or adrenal glands. I am, however, quite offended by the implication that this makes me a less moral person than you. Tuf-Kat 15:59, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat:Yea, Yea, it's very convenient to make a human being sound no different to any mechanical appliance or automobile with working parts, exhausts, wastes etc, but there is no escaping the fact that human beings are different, simply because of the "X", or "XXX" factor: Humans are subject to erotic stimulation when they view other attractive naked human bodies, and in order to preserve the boundaries that would eventually allow for indiscriminate sexual contact that may result therefrom, there is a need for some standard of "control", some call it "morality" and others call it "responsibility", whatever you want to call it, but you wouldn't want articles about incest or masturbation etc etc having graphic photos of a father and child "doing it" etc would you? So as responsible Wikipedians we must draw the lines now or face the reality that Wikipedia is on its way to becoming a porn site in the guise of an encyclopedia. IZAK 16:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

but you wouldn't want articles about incest or masturbation etc etc having graphic photos of a father and child "doing it" etc would you? - Why not? It seems a good idea to me. Really, no kidding. --Cyclopia 14:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that most human being a considerably more sophisticated that and can recognise context. In terms of control, you should excercise some and not, as you've done here decided to claim that your particluar bigotries are a moral ones.--Jirate 16:36, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that Wikipedia "is on its way to becoming a porn site in the guise of an encyclopedia". I repeat that I am a moral and responsible person, and I do not think we need to protect ourselves from the possibility of sexual arousal because it is a normal part of the human experience. I have no qualms about a photo or two of masturbation being used appropriately. The hypothetical incest photo is not relevant because its presence on Wikipedia's servers would be illegal, and should be deleted thusly. Furthermore, your substitution of "responsible" for "moral" does not change my claim. I am a responsible and moral individual who breaks no serious laws and spends countless hours a year working with disadvantaged children, whom I care about and constantly endeavour to protect from danger. I continue to resent your claim that all responsible or moral (or any other codeword you come up with) Wikipedians agree with you that particular aspects of healthy human functioning are offensive, dangerous or irresponsible. If you would like to try and convince people that Wikipedia should do something to enable readers to shelter themselves or their children, feel free to do so, but implying that decent human beings are corrupted by seeing clitorises will not help your case. Tuf-Kat

Might I suggest as a compromise my alternative proposal (see above), focussed on minimal user control over what images they see? Showing alt text of controversial images (unless user preferences say otherwise), plus a simple "click here to show image", might just please everybody. (Some hope, but worth a try...) Rd232 17:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No you may not as what your suggesting still labels the images with POV tag.--Jirate 13:29, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Um. I thought of my proposal as precisely the opposite - because rather than classifying images in any way which will be difficult, it provides NPOV descriptive alt text for a class of images X where membership of X is agreed on a case-by-case basis in the usual way. (And users decided whether to see image or alt text for X images, both site-wide and case-by-case.) Never mind... to be honest, except in the unlikely event of a system being instituted that amounts to censorship, I'm not really bothered what is decided. Rd232 14:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You want to label the images 'controversial'. You want to label the images in the clitoris article different to the images in the toe article. All labeling, all unencyclopedic.--Jirate 14:55, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

The proposal was per image, not per article or subject. There might very well be a picture of a toe which is considered controversial by the Wikipedia community (in the usual way, on the appropriate Talk page), whilst a picture of a clitoris is not. The appropriate response would be (a) as now, replacement with something else; (b) as now, keep anyway because the article needs it, regardless of users' sensibilities; or (c) if the picture is considered worth keeping, but not forcing readers to see, my alt text/user control approach. Just a third option for controversial images, that's all. (Treating "controversial" as a neutral descriptor of images that raise a lot of discussion on Talk page without reaching a consensus.) Rd232 10:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with the many comments I have read about how we should not discriminate on certain (mainly nudity-related) images because of a NPOV policy is that by including such images you do, in effect, express a POV - that such images are okay to show. This is no different to the person who says that the images should not be shown, albeit an implied POV rather than one explicitly expressed. What is needed is a mechanism by which the best solution is found to satisfy all. Given that the majority of debate is over nude images it would make sense if the mechanism is applied here. Also, arguments such as "if you censor something where do you draw the line?" are moot because only a narrow field of content is being debated over at such length. For example, people are not complaining about the showing of vegetables so obviously there is no need to question the inclusion of such content. However, a large number of potential users may be put off using Wikipedia because of images that are likely to affect their sense of decency. Why should they be excluded when a mechanism can be easily applied which allows those who wish to view can and those that don't do not have to (possibly keeping nude images in external files). Additionally, it is quite feesible that somebody may wish to read a technical article about a penis or pornographic magazines but not wish to view/be offended by seeing a photograph of one so, therefore, arguing that such images automatically be included in sections because their context implies it is also misguided in my opinion.

Some forks or mirrors displaying Wikipedia content from Clitoris without images

I did this quick search in relation to the debate on Talk:Clitoris. In short, there are plenty of alternative sources of Wikipedia content that do not provide images.

• Search Spaniel
• Explore-anatomy
• E-paranoids
• Free web template
• InfoVoyager
• StartPlane
• Websters Online Dictionary

There seem to be plenty. I stopped looking after that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, these sources do not exclude the images in Clitoris specifically but rather do not provide images for any content borrowed from Wikipedia, with the exception of SmartPlane, which contains some images and some "image missing" error messages; the choice of which images are missing there, however, seems to be quite random rather than having anything to do with potential objectionability (see, for example, their entry on the koala). J.K. 11:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the sources listed still seem to be broadly NPOV since they do not selectively omit pictures. I have no objection in principle to forks being selective, however, as long as Wikipedia itself remains NPOV and adopts genuine encyclopedic criteria, subject to Florida law, rather than morality judgements. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)