Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?
2 Poll design
3 Suggestion
4 Ouroboros
5 On censorship
6 Javascript?
7 Poll deadline
8 Poll on how to interpret the outcome of the link/inline poll
9 Linking now?
10 Recent edits to article
11 Protection End of discussion
12 ok, why is the image still inline at this moment?
13 Thus spoke Jimbo
14 Jimbo has spoken
- 14.1 Raul's convo
15 Image poll
16 Vote on external links

[edit] Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?

Note: I have removed the image from the page, and I suggest that it remain so for now. This poll should continue to run in order to allow for full expression of opinion on this complex topic, but in the meantime showing such a photo absent overwhelming community support is unhelpful. I invite people to think carefully about this photo in the context of an overall view of our charitable, humanitarian, educational mission, and not be distracted by arguments about censorship and prudishness, which are very much beside the point here. --Jimbo Wales 05:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the photograph previously at image:Autofellatio.jpg has been replaced by a line drawing, ~~I suggest that we suspend this poll indefinitely.~~ --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspending the poll doesn't seem wise. We need (as a community) to have some standards for deciding where the line is between educational (aka encyclopedic) and non-educational. I think this image is one that should not be included - and have been afraid to be too vocal because I didn't want to be seen as supporting censorship - however, as has been said recently, "It's only that we are so afraid of being accused of censorship that we let it go on this long, I think." And to fail to complete this - start setting this line will only cause a delay of the inevitable discussion. Trödel|talk 03:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I've changed my mind. Let's keep it open. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inline: 42 (36.21%)
Link: 74 (63.79%)

Results updated by: Paul August ☎ 11:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote on the poll deadline.

This poll refers to Image:Autofellatio.jpg.

I'd suggest that the first poll tries to answer the simple question "Should the autofellatio image be shown inline or as a link?". The format of any link, or the positioning of any image can come later. Is everyone content that this an acceptable form for the question? -- sannse (talk) 02:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll discussion moved to #Poll design

[edit] Keep image inline

Suits me. I changed it to inline on January 6th and have found it to be surprisingly stable in the month since then, given the controversial contents of the image. So I think I'd like to keep it inline as it's a lovely picture and he does seem to be enjoying himself so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep inline. It's an illustration of the article's subject. But for seeing that picture, I might have thought it wasn't actually physically possible, but images (though possible of doctoring, of course) add substance. What reasons are there to not have the image that wouldn't also apply to not having the article? Postdlf 07:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)\

Would you still say the same thing if this debate was about the Goatse.cx article and a hypothetical inline image there? Would your criteria still hold? "Illustration of the article's subject"? You bet. "Might have thought it wasn't actually physically possible"? Yep. "What reasons not to have the image that wouldn't apply to not having the article"? Well, you tell me. Note that Goatse.cx currently does not even offer a linked image. So it seems that Wikipedia as a community does occasionally draw the line... that is, it's not a question of whether to draw the line, but where to draw it. Sometimes (how do I put this...) "real world considerations" prevail over absolutist no-censorship-ever inline-all-the-way principles. -- Curps 23:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I would not, because the goatse article is not about the guy's anus, but about the website as a part of internet lore. If hello.jpg was used to illustrate an article on anus stretching, then (assuming copyright isn't a problem), I'd vote to keep it inline. --Carnildo 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're reaching a bit here. The "goatse" phenomenon is all about one specific image, yet that image is entirely missing from its page. It's comparable to not having a photograph of "the blue marble" at The Blue Marble. The Zapruder film article also has a still frame from the film, although that article is mostly about the film's significance in history, and you wouldn't argue that the image is suitable only as an illustration for an article on presidential motorcades. Most of the images used in Wikipedia are far more peripheral: for instance, a photograph of a historical figure is just a nice-to-have accessory, not really needed to appreciate their biography and achievements. By contrast, the goatse image is far more central to a discussion of the goatse phenomenon, yet it's entirely missing. Copyright is not an issue, we could plausibly claim "fair use". I wish you could bring yourselves to admit that the real reason that Goatse.cx has no image is simply because even strong no-censorship advocates sometimes have to draw the line somewhere... the only question is where. Perhaps this poll is part of answering that question. -- Curps 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried adding a screenshot to goatse.cx just now, but an admin speedied it. --SPUI (talk) 03:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was me. You have now reuploaded it, but as per our talk discussion I hope you will not add it back to Goatse.cx (inline or otherwise) pending the outcome of the new poll at Talk:Goatse.cx which your action has precipitated. -- Curps 03:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the goatse image is rather sickening and I don't enjoy looking at it, but is that a reason to not have it in an article that is primarily about that image? I certainly didn't go blind when I saw it, so I can't claim injury. All you did was imagine an image that was supposedly so offensive that no one would bother to defend it, but that's far from coming up with an explanation of why we should take note of offense, offense to whom, offense from what, and what we should do to remedy or prevent offense, if anything. I am absolutely against this kind of censorship in the real world, but I am open to the idea that different standards may apply in the wikipedia context, if someone could just articulate a logical, NPOV standard in favor of this censorship. Postdlf 08:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I expect that some people will defend it (please go ahead and vote in the new poll at Talk:Goatse.cx) but others will agree that occasionally practical considerations trump pure principle. For instance, one of the absolutely fundamental Wikipedia principles is that anyone can edit anything, yet bowing to reality we have permanently protected the main page. How to set a standard for deciding on the rare cases when we might wish to permanently protect a page or de-inline or remove entirely an image? I don't have any ready answer... I think rare cases are inevitably decided on a case-by-case basis. -- Curps 15:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. As I've said before, linking would be POV, no matter how it is worded etc. The only pertinent and POV question is: does the picture add to/enhance the article? Yes, IMO, but the picture was also put up on IfD and kept. Any censoring because some people might be offended is illegitimate. TIMBO (T A L K) 15:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Image blocking on the grounds of offensiveness cannot be done on the basis that says a specific image is or isn't offensive. Some sort of carefully thought out tagging system may work, but just majority-says-what-is-offensive is a bad idea. (The question is fine.) --fvw * 16:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
If we're going to vote, I vote to keep the inline image. --SPUI 01:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Do not allow cultural POV to do with prudity influence policy. --Oldak Quill 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Doesn't matter if an image is considered offensive by some. I know a lot of people who think it's offensive to even see an article on some topics. The image is information; it is my belief that this encyclopaedia is in the business of presenting information, not censoring information. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. The image is no more offensive than the article itself. We should keep or delete them together. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep inline, but I wouldn't object to an image change. This one shocked me a bit. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 03:02 Z
Inline. The image is an integral part of the article, with all the same content. Any argument that the image should be linked seems equally valid for linking to the whole article. LizardWizard 04:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
The image should be kept inline. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. - --Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Furthermore, removing this image sets a very, very bad precent. →Raul654 04:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Flyers13 04:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. — Davenbelle 06:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) — Davenbelle 10:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Deciding which images are "offensive" is tricky, but I don't think this one is. (and, of course, it's necessarily POV to label something offensive) — MikeX (talk) 12:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. It adds to the topic, and is not a copyvio. It thus belongs. --Improv 14:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. "Common knowlege" is that this particular position is impossible, so an image is needed to prove that it can be done. Since the image is no more offensive than the article itself, I don't see any reason not to inline it. --Carnildo 19:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep inline, BUT move further down the page and put a disclaimer at the top, maybe? --[jon] [talk] 20:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep inline, with one reservation: the image is certainly illegal in some countries — what's the situation of Wikipedia with regard to the law here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Note - I am not a lawyer). Wikimedia is located almost entirely within Florida. (We have 3 caching squids in France, but they are, in any case, expendible). Wikimedia has no database servers outside of Florida. As such, and given that virtually every country in the world exempts caching from content restrictions, we are only subject to content restrictions codified in US Federal and Florida state law. →Raul654 21:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Noisy | Talk 21:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inline though I have no problem with putting it below the fold. Rick K 21:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inline The bellman 21:24, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Inline Dunno what all the fuss about. Please don't let puritan cultural POV to influence policy —Christiaan 21:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline, though support for the tagging methods used by widely available content filters would be very good, so those who want such things filtered can easily have that view. Jamesday 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline, though putting it farther down the article would probably reduce complaint without compromising integrity any. Bryan 00:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. But it should be marked up as sexually explicit so people who don't like this type of content can filter it in their user CSS. --Eloquence * 01:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Inline --GatesPlusPlus 04:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. What is "offensive" about sexual activities involving willing, adult, partners ? There are things which are really immoral, shocking, and well-illustrated -- see Lynching, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, My Lai Massacre, St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Leo Frank, Kent State shootings, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Camp X-Ray or Shoah. The only reason for censoring the photograph is to make puritans comfortable with the article, and a puritan who comes here is either stupid, or wanting to learn something. Rama 09:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:17, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Inline: But also see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Palestine-info 13:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inline. If someone wants to just find out what word 'autofellatio' means, they can consult Wiktionary. -Hapsiainen 14:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote.
Inline - David Gerard 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it inline Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline, assuming any images used are copyright-safe. Guan aco 23:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Anything else is blatantly POV. - Vague | Rant 03:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Cultural POV and plain silly, considering what Wikipedia is not and the content disclaimer. gcbirzan^talk 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Wikipedia should not be censored. Images shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of the random page link. It should be the other way round. Bush Me Up 11:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, if we censored this for the sake of not risking upsetting people who pressed Random Article without being aware of our content disclaimers, we'd also have to censor Lynching, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, My Lai Massacre, St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Leo Frank, Kent State shootings, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Camp X-Ray, Shoah, and many other articles. We should treat our readers as intelligent people who, if they're likely to be sensitive to certain types of content, are aware of this fact and will read our disclaimers and act accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. People don't come to this article by accident. — Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, someone unsuspecting could end up here through Special:Randompage --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

They could also get to penis, clitoris, vulva, etc. through Special:Randompage. Should we delete those pictures? TIMBO (T A L K) 02:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, but moving any "borderline" pictures down so that they are at least a page away from the top of the page on most screens would be a good idea. r3m0t 16:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Nobody comes to autofellatio without expecting content of a sexual nature, and it strikes me as bizarre that this crusade is restricted to sex-related topics. ADH (t&m) 12:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. I felt slightly drawn towards link for this one, but as someone said; Noone comes to autofellatio if they're having a boss on their shoulder anyway - the very /subject/ isn't work-safe. Also, pressing "random article" is not work-safe either, for the very same reason. Another very valid argument is that the Abu Ghraib pictures are much worse than this - and yet, they remain (rightfully so) up. Autofellatio is something I never thought possible - a drawing wouldn't convince me of my being wrong. While I can see how some are offended by this pic, it's no less absurd to want to remove this as it was to run the whole "no nudity on WP", courtesy of IZAK. Let's keep our puritan POVs out of this, okay? --TVPR 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline — J3ff 06:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inline Pic is illustrative and useful Tuf-Kat 18:43, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Inline, but again, I will steer clear of this hot potato. --Ryan! | Talk 20:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Inline Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail) 18:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Inline. Why not? Lethe | Talk 11:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Are we afraid people will stumble across this page by accident, or something? If compromise is really necessary, put it below the first page with a warning, but really now. The article is about the exact subject which the picture depicts. If you are looking up this particular subject, what do you expect to see on the page when you click the link, a field of daisies? Seraphimblade 03:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Inline. Educational.--x1987x 22:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use a link

Link. As I said, I do oppose a warning here, but I don't have a problem with a link rather than an inline image. People still can be amazed by the image, they just have to click on it. This also has nothing to do with policy - whether such images are "allowed" to be inline or not - but with consensus, and that's what the vote here is trying to find out. --Conti|✉ 13:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Link. sannse (talk) 16:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is clearly an inappropriate image. Linking is an acceptable compromise.

Inappropriate? Excuse me, but I thought this was the autofellatio article. My mistake. Seriously, though, what would be appropriate for such an article? Or is the article inappropriate for Wikipedia? --gcbirzan^talk 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Aphaea* 16:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree with sannse totally. Inappropriate image, need rating ones should be kept as linking, even if needed to put on the article.
Link. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's only common sense. This is the same reason we avoid directly linking to Goatse.
Link. Same what sannse said. —mikko (speak) 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Robert the Bruce 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) a link rather than inline.
Link. - Cantus…☎ - Inappropriate image that greatly damages Wikipedia. Little educational value. NPOV is not an excuse for lacking good judgment.
Link. Vacuum c 01:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) I'm not offended by this image, but a) other people will be and b) it's just plain not work safe.
Link. Obviously. I don't think we need a big photo by a guy sucking his dick on Wikipedia. Those who want to see the photo can click. Neutrality^talk 04:22, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Link as a compromise. This is clearly inappropriate, with ~~little~~ no educational value. I would also like to find out something about the copyright of this particular image. Danny 05:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on Danny, to say that the image has no educational value is ridiculous. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the educational value would be? And is it worth the potential copyright violation? Danny 12:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyright is a separate issue at a separate page. If it's a copyvio, it should be deleted, not linked. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image illustrates the article! How is that not educational? Does Image:OverhandKnot.jpg have no educational value? I mean, Overhand knot describes the knot... why do we need an image?? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. mav 05:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. At the very least. john k 05:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Waerth 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Although not shocked myself I can imagine other people would be. I suggest in these cases make a subpage to the article and put the pictures on there.
Link. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 08:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Click to see dick.
Link. Or delete. A judicious editor said, draw the line here: photographs of genitals: encyclopedic. photographs of sex acts: unencyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. — mark ✎ 10:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Not that it matters vandles will be inseting this image across the wikipedia soon enoughGeni 12:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image has been on wikipedia for quite some time. I'm not aware of any vandalism having to do with it. TIMBO (T A L K) 14:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Give it time. Geni 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that seems quite speculative to me. Do you mean give you time to set up a sockpuppet and clean house? ;) Otherwise I see no reason you'd be so sure, especially since the image has been on wikipedia for quite a while and no incidents, to my knowledge, have occurred. Additionally, anyone is free to upload any images they want. I remember seeing a spree wherein a pornographic pic was uploaded and inserted into random and nonsexual articles with abandon. It was dealt with quickly. So no, it doesn't matter that this image, inserted out of context, could be vandalism. Any image placed out of context across wikipedia is vandalism, although some images might be more shocking/offensive to certain sensibilities. That doesn't mean we don't allow pictures on wikipedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Going by the number of times I have removed the varius penis images while on RC patrol I'm pretty sure that this will be usedGeni 17:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's conceivable, but that's not a reason to delete the image. We're not deleting the penis images, after all. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I rest my case[1]Geni 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. As Sannse. — Dan | Talk 16:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. I don't think it's unreasonable to have some images take one extra click to get to; it's a reasonable compromise which avoids censorship (which I am definitely against), but makes an effort to avoid giving offense. What's the big deal about needing one more click? Noel (talk) 18:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - Seems like a good compromise - and not much trouble to click if you want to see the image. Trödel|talk 18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. This is one of those cases where pragmatism must win over idealism. Fredrik | talk 20:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Doesn't make information unavailable, or even hard to get, so seems reasonable. --Delirium 20:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Inka dinka link. - UtherSRG 20:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Link. This particular image is graphic and artless. I might support a more tasteful image inline. Rhobite 21:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Link ➥the Epopt 21:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. We tend to forget that we are wrtiting for a general readership. I daresay a majority of a general readership will find the picture offensive. What's wrong with making it easily accessible through a link? Kosebamse 21:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. I'd certainly support an image that's not overtly and intentionally pornographic inline. Also note that this has been used as vandalism. F'rinstance, here it is in Orca, which was the featured article listed on the Main Page at that time. —Korath (Talk) 21:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Link. older≠wiser 22:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Link. Preferred would be a drawing such as those used in the sexual position articles. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! Fredrik | talk 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. As a compromise and not an endorsement. Duk 23:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Wherever possible, we should keep WP articles worksafe. I can imagine both photos and images which might be worksafe; this is not one. Agree with Taco. +sj + 23:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link! ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link. - 172.205.205.112 00:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your very first wikipedia contribution! — Davenbelle 00:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

This anon vote shouldn't be counted. —Cantus…☎ 07:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I removed it from the numbered list. Rhobite 23:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Link. I avoided this article today at work and realized I do want Wikipedia to be work-safe. Hyacinth 00:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This fails to address why you're looking up autofellatio at work - David Gerard 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. - MykReeve 01:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link Goplat 01:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link Gkhan 03:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Link for reasons others have stated. -- Curps 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - I read this page from a laptop in McDonald's while using their WiFi connection. I was afraid to open the image with others around. For exactly that reason - link. Fuzheado | Talk 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - WP should be worksafe, particularly in light of the fact that WP is beginning to be cited as a reference source by various media sources. Arkady Rose 10:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link OneGuy 22:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link RoseParks 02:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Link violet/riga (t) 15:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - Disgusting and unnecessary image, people shouldn't be forced into seeing it. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 19:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They aren't. No one has to visit this article who doesn't want to. And seriously, how many people who would be disgusted by the image would seriously be looking up Autofellatio? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people have visited the Goatse.cx article who would be seriously offended if it featured the image in question. I don't think even inline absolutists like yourself would seriously propose inlining that image; it's currently not even offered as a link. In other words, it's not a question of whether or not to draw a line, because Wikipedia as a community already does; it's simply a question of where to draw it. -- Curps 23:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inline absolutist? That's a new one. I'm not absolutist anything. Goatse.cx doesn't have an image? Do you think the goatse.cx image could be used under fair use (for I'm sure it's copyrighted)? BLANKFAZE | (что??)

It's not a personal attack. I'm using definition 3 from http://www.m-w.com/ : an absolute standard or principle. Your user page says: blankfaze strongly opposes any and all censorship. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, in the business of presenting information, not censoring it. blankfaze sees no problem in having images of nudity, images of gore, and profanities, amongst other things, present in Wikipedia content. So I thought this was an accurate description of your position. As for fair use, I believe it would apply, but I'm not a lawyer. By the way, please go ahead and vote in the new poll at Talk:Goatse.cx -- Curps 16:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was; I only stipulated that I am not absolutist anything. Even if I strongly oppose something, there is no case where I am completely unwilling to compromise ;-)... thanks for the link! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even so, I originally got to this article while on the FAC. Someone trolled it, I clicked on the link, not realizing it was a trolling - and immediately thought that the page had been vandalized. Any image that makes someone think that someone added it in to make Wikipedia into a shock site deserves to at least be linked to. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 02:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow that logic. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if an image makes someone immediately close their browser window because its so offensive, then it ought not to be on WP in the first place unless linked to. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 20:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about offensive text? --Improv 20:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It didn't make me do that. Offensive is a problematic characterization (as evidenced on wikipedia in a billion pages, such as Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, Wikipedia:Image censorship, almost the entire clitoris talk page and a r c h i v e s, Wikipedia_Talk:Images unsuitable for inline display, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Possibly_offensive_images, etc. etc.) Plus, I'm sure some people see the images at penis and immediately close their browser windows because it's so offensive. We keep the penis pictures, though, because they add to the article. That's the case here too. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. I'm hardpressed to find a reason why someone who might be offended by the picture would be reading the article in the first place; however, I favor giving readers the choice of whether or not they actually want to view explicit pictures. A link would provide reader choice. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Link Shanes 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Linking helps maintain a balance between WikiCleanliness and NPOV. The content is still accessible, and the squirmish penis-haters are happy (though why they would be browsing this article anyway is beyond me. But we still have the "Random page" button.) - Mark 03:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. The real solution is to categorize images and to allow users to see images like this inline if they wish to; until then, we will need to have some set of (inhale depply) standards. Not to mention the whole work safe issue. Samboy 21:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a proposal for this at Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging that you might want to look at, then. --Carnildo 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Bishonen | Talk 00:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Agree with Taco Deposist that a line drawing would be acceptable inline. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 14:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. --Slowking Man 22:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Link, i'm okay with boobs and clitori but please no men sucking their own dick. Grue 11:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. - Nunh-huh 06:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. Wikipedia isn't a porn site, and the value Wikipedia gains by being work-safe is much greater than the value Wikipedia gains by including images like this one or the Goatse image. There's a big difference between the illustrations in penis and something like this. There's also a big difference between Ashcroftian censorship (where a central government attempts to completely ban the viewing of pornography or whatever else in the hopes that people won't have any way of viewing it) and an editorial decision not to include an image like this in Wikipedia. It's also a disturbing (shocking?) image for a lot of people, and readers should be able to choose whether or not they want to look at it, just like we currently give them that choice at Nick Berg and harlequin type ichthyosis. Dave6 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - having it inline doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it also doesn't provide any worthy benefit to the Wikipedia to balance out the fact that it dismays so many good contributors. —Stormie 10:31, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Link - though I'm not too fussed either way. Xezbeth 14:35, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Link. I opine that this is not "POV censorship"; there are plenty of reasons why people might come to this page without expecting to see the image. "Random page" is the most obvious example. It's also possible that some people might not know what autofellatio is, and would click the link to find out. Remember, not all Wikipedia readers are mature adults; a child could easily see an unknown word, click for more information, and see a man sucking on his own penis. Besides, I know many network admins that would consider such an image to be a reason to block this entire site with a filtering service—especially if that image were put there by community consensus. Don't get me wrong—I really hate censorship—but there's no particular need to shove such images in people's faces to say, "look! Wikipedia is free of censorship!" --bdesham 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - inline is Not Safe For Work/School/Anywhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nor is Wikipedia. --gcbirzan^talk 06:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link — I think the best option is to give the reader the choice whether to view the image or not, and not to make it for him or her beforehand. It's quite possible someone would want to read the article and learn about this topic without seeing the image (I fall into this category, for example). I don't believe putting a link would be an act of censorship (It would be nice to have some software solution where users could specify whether they wanted to view controversial images inline or not.) — Matt Crypto 09:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC). People gave already all the arguments above
Link lots of arguments above, 14:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link keep available through link for those who want to see, I did not know what autofellatio is when I visited this article for the first time and I'd prefer Wikipedia to be work/school safe. --Bjarki 15:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - inline is clearly not acceptable to many members of the community, destroy completely is also clearly not acceptable to many members of our community. Absent some new technical solution, this is the only possible compromise. Pcb21| Pete 16:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - SimonP 19:47, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Link -- there is a real (although admittedly difficult to articulate) difference between censorship and an editor's care in effectively reaching an audience. I think that, to promote the larger goals of Wikipedia (which cannot be successfully summarized as "fighting censorship" in my opinion, although I may be wrong), we should offer our readers a link to this picture but not load it inline with the article -- this is not the action of a group trying to censor information about autofellatio (after all, we're presenting a reasonably detailed article about it), but rather the action of a community of editors that have carefully weighed the possibilities and realize that, for too many people, the inline display of this article would seriously deter too great a percentage of our audience from using us as a ready resource (because of their concern for children, workplace environment, etc.). And if anyone thinks I'm way off base, I'd welcome comment at my user talk page. Jwrosenzweig 21:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link - Imagine 17 year old High School Junior working on a paper related to "Human Sexuality". While she and her parents and teachers may have no problem with her reading about various aspects of sexuality - seeing them depicted is a little different. A link allows the reader to have a little control over their experience. Johntex 20:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link -- if someone follows a link from one of the articles which links to Autofellatio, or does a Google search, or uses the Random page feature, they should not be exposed to this image immediately. It should be possible to read the article to find out what Autofellatio might be without being subjected to the image. I have not, in fact, read the article because I don't want to see the image, and it isn't clear to me at present whether the image is there. There are a large number of people who are not comfortable with this type of image and do not wish to see them. Images of unusual sex practices are regarded as "shock images" and/or pornography by many. Others may be fine with this type of image. Wikipedia editors who think there is nothing exceptional about these images should not attempt to force their views on everyone else. This is not about openness; it is about respect for Wikipedia's readers. Personally, I think this type of image should not be in the Wikipedia at all. It discredits the encyclopedia with a large proportion of its potential readership, makes it problematical to use the Wikipedia in precisely those places where encyclopedias are commonly used (namely, schools and libraries) and it fights a battle that is completely at a tangent to the aims of the project. I don't expect to gain a consensus for that view. But at least lets keep these images as optional. --BM 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link Paul August ☎ 04:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Link. With the line drawing this is very reasonable. We should not censor anything, not even this crappy picture, but we ought to give users choice. If a prospective reader wanted to see explicit images, there's google, but a reader presumably wants to learn about the topic. Whether they want to see the image or not ought to be their decision. Cool Hand Luke 10:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link. I find the image distracting and somewhat unpleasant. I would be likely to avoid reading the article with that image visible. -- Creidieki 03:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Link this and link all pictures that we know are likely to be unacceptable to at least the average reader. Encyclopaedias are not greatly improved by pictures of erect penises, vulvas and breasts, no matter how much we like to pretend that they are. They simply serve to exclude some of our readership. Yes, I understand that some of the editors here would like to exclude those who don't share their views -- it's the motive force for some! -- but I'd hope there was still a shred of the ideal here. There is no censorship here. Those who want to see the pr0n need only click the link.Dr Zen 02:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Link. That way the "educational mission" of WP which Jimbo refers to can still be served, but those may not have known what this topic was when they came to the article will be informed by the text, but not see the image unless they deliberately choose. Jonathunder 00:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Link. Choice is a good thing in cases like this. Rx StrangeLove 03:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Preferably neither, but a link is the less of two evils. 80.255 17:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Link — Pladask 01:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other/Comments

(Note: I voted above) Neither Duk 12:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is an image of someone autofellating on an article about autofellatio "inappropriate"? What does "inappropriate" mean in this context, and why should wikipedia care about what is "inappropriate"? Postdlf 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether the image is inappropriate for the article, the image adds to the article and should be made available. The question is: in which form should it be made available, inline or linking? Because that's a very very subjective question, there's a vote. --Conti|✉ 17:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

At least one person has called the image "inappropriate", and used that as justification for making it a mere link. I'd like to get to the underlying basis of this issue, but no one is directly discussing the values at play here, which is what we need to do. It isn't simply about headcounting, but rationale. Why is this an issue here? Let's get a consensus on principles. Postdlf 17:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can only tell you about my motivations here, and I think the image is "appropriate" as in "it adds to the article". I do prefer to link to the image because I think that the majority of the people who will have a look at this article (for whatever reason) will not expect to see it, and a part of these people might be offended by it. This alone is not reason enough to fight for the image to be linked tho, and if a clear majority of the users think that the image should be kept inline I'm fine with that, too. Another reason is that the inline image might make us look "unprofessional", but that's just my personal feeling and I don't think we can successfully argue on that. --Conti|✉ 18:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why is someone's potential offense relevant to our editorial decisions? And what is so bad about being offended? Why should things that give offense to some be hidden or removed? Why wouldn't that extend to words that offend? Why shouldn't we be having the same discussion about fuck? Postdlf 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair questions, and that is pretty much my point: Where should we draw the line? I'm sure that I can find pictures of sexual activities of which a great majority of wikipedians would vote to link rather than to keep inline, although every argument on this page for keeping it inline would count there as well. The only difference would be that you would feel offended by it. I think we should draw the line here and link this image, you think we should show it inline. We're having different opinions on this and that's fine, I just don't like the "we can't decide whether something is offensive or not" attitude around here. We have to decide that, otherwise I seriously don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to richly illustrate every paraphilia article. --Conti|✉ 15:37, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to respond. My point is more that we don't even know what line we're talking about, or whether there is in fact such a line or should be. Except for obviously illegal kiddie porn, why shouldn't we illustrate every paraphilia article? I don't know in fact how far I myself am comfortable in going, but I don't want any boundaries that are not based on some objective basis of harm, rather than a mere proxy for personal squeamishness or a sectarian view of morality that has no place here. I'm just looking for a rationale. So far I haven't seen any other than naked opinion (no pun intended). I do think the burden of justification is on those favoring less content rather than more. Postdlf 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: This is not the first vote of this kind, see Talk:Nick Berg/archive 2#Inline image poll. It was about an image of a severed head, and the great majority voted to link to it rather than to show it inline. I just wanted to mention this here because some people here voted more or less on principle to show the image inline, saying that linking images is always POV or that we can't decide whether something is offensive or not. I'd just be curious how they would've voted there. --Conti|✉ 18:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that's slightly different - the image doesn't necessarily add much to the article. Just as I link to the image of the first SPUI in the See also section of Single Point Urban Interchange, since it's useful but not necessary in the article itself. But here, autofellatio.jpg is the primary picture on the subject. --SPUI 07:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does the autofellatio image really add anything though? All that I see is that its some guy sucking a dick, it doesn't even look like its his own dick. Wikipedia doesn't need pictures like that inline. Let's face it, if Encyclopedia Britannica did that, they'd have all sorts of people all over them complaining! I just don't see any reason to have this kind of image on WP. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neither Certainly not a photo - who wants to see that sort of stuff anyway? and not a link - or do we have links on all sexual acts to relevant pornography sites? I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a place to show off obscene images, jguk 19:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Obscene"? Meaning...? It's an article about a sexual act. Many would think that the text itself might be "obscene". There was a time in the U.S. when information about contraceptives was banned from the mails because it was "obscene". Once again, there are a lot of adjectives being bandied about without any discussion of why it matters whether something is potentially "obscene" or "offensive", what objectively qualifies as either, and why that should bring particular consequences. Postdlf 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These relativistic comments strike me as disingenious. nothing can be defined? great! you would have enjoyed the postmodernist movement some, what, 40 years ago? An encyclopedia is inherently modernist, not postmodernist. An autofellatio image that is a notable work of art, say Ancient Indian or Greek, might be a different matter. What makes the present image unencyclopedic is that it is obviously intended as pornography. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obvious to you maybe. Haha. —Christiaan 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it's intended as an illustration in the context of this article. Replace it with a better photograph depicting the act if you think the current one is unprofessional. Many of the pictures on here are fairly amateurish snapshots, but they'll have to do until we get better ones. As for the rest of your comment, ok, so words have meanings. Then give them some. Otherwise they are empty. Postdlf 00:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This image should not be referenced at all. I voted 'use a link' above as second best. I'm not prude, but the image is simply not encyclopedic. Find me a work of art showing autofellatio, and I'll be all for including it. dab (ᛏ) 09:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about if we run the image through Photoshop's "brush strokes" filter and maybe give it a fancy frame? Then it'd be a work of art and become encyclopedic, without changing any details of what it depicts. :) Bryan 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with dab above. —Cantus…☎ 10:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

These are arguments to delete the image. That motion has already failed. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What was decided was deleting the image from the servers, not from this article. Nice try. —Cantus…☎ 23:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try yourself. It's inconceivable that one could vote keep for an image and not want it used in the appropriate article. So my point still holds: your crusade to link the image as a second-best option to deleting it is illegitimate because those objections were already raised on IfD, and the picture was kept. Another IfD on the image would fail because it was just on IfD. 'Nuff said. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain —Ashley Y 12:11, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that while I do believe there is nothing offensive about the image, it is most likely a copyvio, and as such should be dealt with if possible through that procedure. I would support a similar image being linked inline, though. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is already in progress. Cantus selflessly trawled gay porn sites on our behalf and found a possible source. While there are numerous discrepancies between the evidence he found and our own image, which was leased on GFDL by its purported creator, I think it's worth following up. I have tried to contact the site's webmaster to see if they can verify the picture as theirs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haha. "selflessly trawled gay porn sites"... Yeah it's pretty obvious it's a copyvio. If anyone can find a similar GFDL image or get permission to use this one, that would be great. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"That would be great" -- Haha. OMG. —Cantus…☎ 10:43, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it... what's the funny part? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The uploader said he made it and offered it in GFDL. So far I have seen no good reason to doubt his word. There seems to be nothing in the picture (I've looked at the binary) suggesting origin. Amateur autofellators, pornographers and photographers use Wikipedia, too, and they are the kind of people who are likely to own the copyright to pictures of this nature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link temporarily (within WP, not external lk) pending new mechanism for handling such cases.
I hasten to say that
1. images cannot be inherently "pornographic" since the study of images used as porn can be a non-porn, and encyclopedic, purpose,
2. we should not suppress encyclopedic info just bcz some readers would use it with porn intent, and
3. we neither need to, nor can, accomodate needs created by users' belief systems: those who believe they would have "evil" thoughts or feelings in response to an image, that those with other belief systems wouldn't have, or would find normal and tolerable, have made a mistake in either blindly surfing or specifically linking to WP.
However, it is plausible to me that relevant inherent harm, harm at what i'll call a gut level, may be possible from "shocking" images: it is a reasonable evolutionary-psychology hypothesis that (especially in females and concerning naked males) some images are inherently frightening enough to be traumatic to people with fairly normal psychology, and so inherently frightening that "knowing better" than to pay attention to the fear, or "knowing it's in the past" is irrelevant. But i can't reliably recognize such "semiotics", and votes are capable only of roughly gauging which images might be risks of that kind and justify evaluation by a competent professional.
IMO there should be a procedure in place whereby a psychotherapeutic professional is selected by the WM board thru interviews and placed on retainer. The pro makes a determination, if an image meets both of two threshholds. (The numeric threshholds are to be set as a standing policy by the professional in consultation with the board.)
1. One threshhold is an absolute number of experienced registered editors believing the image is harmful as described above.
2. The other is a percentage threshhold, for the ratio between the "harmful" votes and votes of experienced registered editors who believe professional review is a waste of effort.
Until achieving both threshholds, until the end of the voting period, the image stays subject to normal editing practices. From the point where both are met, it should be temporarily linked instead of left inline. (The length of voting would be set by the board). If either threshhold fails at the end of voting, it goes back to inline, and arguments for linking or removal, based on harmfulness (or similar concepts like porn), are off-topic; if both threshholds are met, the image stays linked and the case goes to the professional for arbitration.

--Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Comment.
(My vote for "other" is above.) The question of linking or inline should not have arisen, bcz the image is not relevant to this article. Even if the act is a mere fantasy, an article can be written about that, but such an article does not even need a drawing let along a photo. On the other hand, if the act is a verifiable reality, an article concerning both the fantasy and the act would be called for, and since seeing this remarkable act is fairly crucial to believing, an image that verifiably depicts it is desirable in such an article.
But this is not such an image:
1. The framing makes it entirely suitable as a momento of having seen the act performed in person, but as an effort at proof it fails miserably: there is no reason to assume that the thigh, the genitals (or dildo), the upper body, or perhaps even the hand were shot simultaneously or even originally part of the same body as each other: if the images were superimposed and edge effects fixed by a professional, framing like this to exclude the intermediate body parts would be the easiest way to solve the biggest problem of faking the pic.
2. In fact, it's hard to imagine reliable evidence. You or i probably couldn't afford to produce a convincing whole-body fake. But a Hollywood CGI wizard might own the company and its resources, or be permitted to use them to practice up for the next paying client, by making jackalopes and autofellators in full body or in motion, so the best possible image becomes convincing only by your taking the word of someone credible who saw the image being shot from life. Of course, they can send people to jail for swearing to a lie -- well, as long as the lie can be proven, and is relevant to the legal proceeding in which the lie is sworn to! So what makes anyone credible in verifying something that like this? I can't even rule out Walter Cronkite or Mike Wallace or Jimbo Wales saying to themself "this is so implausible that my pretending to lend my credibility to it does no damage: it's a piece of performance art that simply demonstrates that no matter how absurd a thing you make up, there'll be people uncritical enough to believe it." (That is, i can see these potential witnesses taking that approach, assuming of course that they've never seen it done!)
BTW, the dildo article deserves a pic with a few samples of conservative and extravagant dildoes.

--Jerzy (t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Neither Arno 06:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neither. I won't support the image now that Jimbo has spoken out against it. foobaz·✐ 03:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neither. I have to quote Anthere's message in WikiEN-list: "... the lowest part of the image is cut. I actually wondered if it was REALLY autofellatio...It may be that the image is not honestly reporting what we are led to believe it is." Therefore the image doesn't prove that the act is possible, so it has no use in this article. -Hapsiainen 13:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll design

When does the poll end? How is the result interpreted? I suggest a minimum of 30 votes (votes for inline + votes for link = 30) and a 70% of support for one of the two choices. After that the change (if necessary edit-wise) must be made. —Cantus…☎ 01:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support for inlining is far stronger than I expected, so far. Taking a rough glance at results so far it looks like we now have well over your suggested minimum and the vote for linking (calculated by your criteria above) is only at 55%. No consensus.

As I suggested on Sannse's page, there are two things that may be distorting the results:

I think people with Autofellatio on their watchlists are likely to be in favor of inlining the picture
Some of your other activities related to censoring pictures may have made some people generally opposed to censorship alert enough to notice this poll and vote inline on principle.

In the circumstances, might I suggest we consider a more formal survey? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns here and am happy to add a deadline, obviously it will be better to formalise this a little rather than start again with a more complex set of rules - lets keep this a straightforward as possible -- sannse (talk) 01:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I suggest is that we understand that this is to see if we can gauge whether a consensus exists, and if so to what degree, on the question asked.

Wikipedia:Survey guidelines gives a checklist:

What questions should be asked?
- I suggest that the current question be kept: Should the autofellatio image be shown inline or as a link?
What will the possible answers be?
- I suggest that the current two options be kept: inline or link
Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
- N/A
When is the deadline?
- I suggest at least six weeks. Let's say 20 March
  - I suggest no deadline. Let's wait for that 70% of support instead. —Cantus…☎ 05:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
    - If we're going to put some sort of percentage qualification on it, I think it should be at least six weeks as well. Otherwise we'd run the risk of ending it prematurely. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I cannot accept an open-ended poll. If 20 March is not acceptable to anyone, could they please suggest an alternative deadline. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How will the survey be totalled?
- See Cantus' suggested method above. 70% to be taken as a consensus, either way.
Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.
- I suggest that we ask people interested in writing such mini-essays to do so in sub-pages of this page under their username, like this: Talk:Autofellatio/Tony Sidaway. They should all be listed in a subsection before the vote subsections.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick run through of the maths shows that if the linking option is to win it will have to get a total of 61 votes assuming (almost certianly incorrectly that inline gets no more votes). Inline by comparison would need 89 votes to atchive consenus (assuming once again almost certianly incorrectly that the number of link votes would stay the same). I think the odds of a poll producing a consensus either way on this are pretty much zero. Geni

Well, it might take longer than expected, but I believe eventually that 70% will be reached. —Cantus…☎ 07:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Inline (40 votes; 79 to go)

$40 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)$

$x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 40} {0.3}$

$x = 79$

$40 + 79 = 119$

$\frac {119 * 100} {119 + 51} = 70%$

Link (51 votes; 42 to go)

$51 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)$

$x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 51} {0.3}$

$x = 42.333 \ldots \approx 42$

$51 + 42 = 93$

$\frac {93 * 100} {93 + 40} \approx 70%$

Cantus, you are ignoring Duk, Dab and my comments that neither a picci nor an inline should be used. These should certainly be counted in determining whether or not there is a picci, jguk 11:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that going by theevidence so far that position doesn't have a chance of winning. Geni 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. But I think you can safely say that those opposing any mention of any possible image are pretty much opposed to showing an image! jguk 23:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that should be 79. 78 wouldn't give a 70%, but 69.93%. At the very least, it should be approximatively equal to 70%. --gcbirzan^talk 06:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the abstain/neither should count towards the total number of votes. --gcbirzan^talk 06:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is too complicated - whatever happened to simple polls that gauge the view of the community in a common sense way? I'm happy with a dead line (although the suggested one seems rather a long way away) - at that point lets look at the result and decide the best course of action -- sannse (talk) 13:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has raised a serious objection to my proposal yet. Please do so if you want to, with an alternative timescale, or whatever. I'm not committed to these scales; if you think just ten days is better and we can all agree (I could) then let's go for February 20 instead. But (to make it clear) I won't accept an earlier date unless we can get a general agreement on that within the next five days or so (February 10).

I also understand a deadline to mean "votes with a datestamp after this date will not be accepted". So 23:29 on Feb 20 would make a Feb 20 deadline, 00:00 Feb 21 would miss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the "linking" position is now the default one, since it is the status quo created by Jimbo, and that the "inline" position is the one that is going to require the 70% consensus. --BM 03:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a little bit of talk about "defaults" prior to Jimbo's intervention; this is contrary to the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, which make it plain that the purpose of a survey is as "an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support." We haven't achieved consensus on either linking or inlining. However it seems to me that the current situation with an inlined drawing by Rama together with a linked photograph is likely to prove fairly stable. It is possible that consensus in the poll may be reached by March 20, but it appears to me that the Rama picture has probably taken the problem away.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

In case it is decided that the image should be linked, would everyone agree to use {{linkimage|Autofellatio.jpg|Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.}}, which looks like this:

Autofellatio.jpg (view file)

Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.

—Cantus…☎ 01:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Although I think the caption should be more along the lines of: "This image shows a man performing autofellatio." —Cantus…☎ 01:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Do you want to be able to do this? Buy him a beer and maybe he'll let you!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer not having to deal with trolls, but that's just idealism. —Cantus…☎ 23:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Canty. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see you're getting worried about the possible outcome, Timby. —Cantus…☎ 10:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too worried - it already survived when it was up on IfD. This little image has some fight in it left, methinks. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Can't someone who is good at editing images make some mosaic or other distortion over the guys glands like how they censor on TV? Sounds like a good compromise to me. Palestine-info 13:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to do that, what about the balls? TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, no. Let's keep that kind of nonsense on American network television. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They do that in Japanese network television. I believe, from what I understand, in Japanese porn as well. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That must be some horrible porn. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True, see Tubgirl. Doesn't mean we should. --SPUI (talk) 20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's make sure that our porn is at least good porn. (unsigned)

Yep. Only the best for Wikipedia, I say. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ouroboros

It seems awfully unlikely to me, given the sources of ouroboros mythology, that it is in any way a symbol of autofellatio. No original research, please; either cite a reference for 'some people' or remove the image. --+sj +

There is a single reference online saying that Robert Nozick 'explores this idea in "Philosophical Explanations"' [2].

The external reference (David Lorton) also mentions the two concepts together. So this isn't original research. The two concepts have been associated from time to time. I know of no evidence of an ancient origin of this association, though it's not that implausible. Those ancient Greeks could get down and funky with the rest of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's no evidence of the ouroboros historically being a "symbol of autofellatio", because it isn't. That random writers in the 20th century have "associated" the ouroboros and autofellatio says something about those random writers, not about the ouroboros. The test for inclusion in an encyclopedia shouldn't be whether something is "implausible" or not, but whether it can be documented. If no one can find such documentation, we ought not include this "factoid", especially as it is taken up and mirrored, making Wikipedia the source and primary purveyor of this "factoid" on the Internet—see how many of the Goggled "autofellatio ouroboros" hits use our exact weasel words on this. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It didn't seem likely to me that Nozick talked about this at all (he's not that sort of writer), and not in Philosophical Explanations (it's not that sort of book). So I checked, and I can find nothing remotely like it. Looking at the external link, the reference to Nozick isn't to the claim about Ourobouros, but to the metaphysical theory that someone had linked it to. I think that the reference in the article should go. It's pretty preposterous, in any case. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

The Lorton reference makes this Ouroboros/autofellatio idea barely encyclopedic, but having the Ouroboros image at the top of the article is misleading, in my opinion. I am commenting out that image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Lorton reference is to an interpretation of a single poem, in which he argues that because semen and spit are both mentioned, autofellatio is involved. It's not encyclopedic, it's an idiosyncratic reading of a single image in an Egyptian poem being interpreted thousands of years after it was written in a novel, eccentric manner. - Nunh-huh 00:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On censorship

Please stop saying that including a link is censorship, it's not. The link allows people to choose for themselves whether or not to view the image. Vacuum c 14:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Calling it censorship also implies that we're preventing some other group from communicating in some way. But we are the group, and we're deciding for ourselves whether we want to display this image on the article. Rhobite 14:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. - Mark 14:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, that doesn't make linking any less POV. I think it says something that the image was deemed acceptable at Images for Deletion (presumably based on its encyclopedic merit) yet could possibly be linked now because of its "offensiveness." I hope we don't play that game. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree on this. However, even though I'm not thrilled with the picture, and seeing it once was more than enough for me, it's the trend I fear. If it is decided to remove this image frm the article itself, I fear that every time someone finds a picture they think offensive - say, a photo of a dead tree, from a _radical_ enviromentalist's POV, could possibly be offensive - they would pop it into a link rather than keep it inline. I, for one, find the prospect less than tempting.--TVPR 09:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript?

Would it be desirable to make a Javascript that displays a box similar to Template:Linkimage, but when the link is clicked, the image is displayed inline? Vacuum c 21:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Or users who want to get funky could just get something like image-show-hide. I use it at work and it means I'm *always* work-safe.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The difference between my proposal and image-show-hide is that it doesn't require any action on the part of the viewer. Vacuum c 22:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, image-show-hide doesn't require any action on the part of Wikipedia, and it doesn't have any impact on viewers who have learned how to drive their browsers and don't want to have to go around clicking things just to see stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, including a link doesn't have any impact on users who would prefer not to see the image and don't want to go around installing software just to not see stuff. Go read ESR's [the luxury of ignorance]. Vacuum c 03:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer to require people who want special sauce to pour it on themselves. They're more likely to know what flavor. The article isn't going to help you here; esr's argument would be an argument against adding bells and whistles to Wikipedia, not for adding them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True. However, your route is more complex. In order for the (approx.) 30% of the population that would be offended by gay pornography like this image to avoid viewing it, they would have to visit an unrelated website and download and install software they haven't even heard of and must search for (including the Firefox browser for 95% that don't use it). This places it outside the realm of most computer users. In contrast, for people who wish to view the image, all it takes is one click. Vacuum c 00:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

My solution is not in any way more complex. It involves Wikipedia doing precisely nothing and leaving people to learn how to operate their browsers as they should have done prior to starting to use the web. All browsers can easily be made to turn on and off image downloads, I simply gave a method of making it even easier (a single click) using the world's fastest-growing browser.

Even better: whenever people complain about the image and demand that we do something about it, we gently remind them that the fault lies with the person who connected them to the internet but neglected to teach them how to use the web. This reminder would be public service that we, as an encyclopedia, should be proud to perform absolutely free. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So in order to delve into mathematics, one must learn calculus? I think not. Addition would surely suffice. Vacuum c 22:59, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a very good comparison. Modern web browsers are extremely easy to operate, it's not too much to ask that a person learn how to operate one before using the web, or at the very least, check his browser controls before complaining to content providers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll deadline

Please vote on whether this poll should have a deadline.

Tony Sidaway has suggested (and the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines recommend) a deadline. He has suggested March 20, 2005, but is not wedded to that date. It was just about six weeks in the future when we were designing the poll.
Cantus opposes any deadline.

Please vote. At least let us have consensus on whether there should be a deadline, otherwise we may not be able to agree on which option, if any, won the poll.

Currently 17 of 22 who voted favor a deadline rather than no deadline. (summary by Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I propose to keep this poll open and, if there is still a pro-deadline 70%+ consensus on this poll by 20 March 2005, both this poll and that one will be declared closed. There will be no winners; either we will hve consensus or we will not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No deadline, whichever option reaches 70% first

No. gcbirzan^talk 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) - I'd also favour a "70% or 6 weeks, whichever comes first" kind of thing.
No. Cantus…☎ 02:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - What if we reach the deadline and end up with a 50/50 result? A 70% assures this won't happen, no matter how long it takes. As an example, the polls at Template talk:Europe have been active for the past 8 months and are routinely closed when that 70% is reached.
No. MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - Wait to reach 70% for clear consensus.
No. — Dan | Talk 03:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Though 70% seems a bit high, and it's unclear which option will be the default if no consensus is reached.

No consensus means just that: that there is no consensus. This poll is not to decide what to do, but to determine whether a consensus exists, or can be created, on what to do. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The poll is to decide what we should do with the image now. The poll's options are such that you won't get any kind of compromise via consensus or discussion. You either show the image or you don't. Period. —Cantus…☎ 11:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please read and try to absorb Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. The intent of this poll is clear--to see if the initial straw poll, which was strongly in favor of a link, could be built into a consensus to link instead of inline. This poll, should it fail to build consensus, does not preclude the use of further polls to try to arrive at a consensus. Unless a consensus is built from a poll, it is highly unlikely (and would tend to go against Wikipedia history) that the poll would be taken as binding. This poll may or may not decide the fate of the image--depending on whether it is successful in building a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No I really don't want to see a one vote victory for either side. Geni 04:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No I dislike deadlines--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, the poll should have a deadline

Yes --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. All our conclusions have deadlines. It doesn't mean they can't be changed later on, but we at least should come to a conclusion at some point. --Improv 17:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. There will never be a 70% consensus (as I write this, "Link" would need to get about 45 consecutive votes to achieve this). Flyers13 20:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I think it should be earlier though, like 27 Feb 2005. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. March 20 is like a good deadline. Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-9 02:44 Z
Yes. 70% is a very high threshold, and if neither option ever reaches it then what's the default, the status quo? Or do we switch back and forth as one option or the other takes the lead? -- Curps 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no default. If no consensus is reached after the deadline we all have to reconsider our positions in view of the fact that we have failed to reach a consensus on either option. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. All good things must come to an end. An endless poll is reminiscent of infinite loops and zombie processes. I too agree that we will never reach 70%. foobaz·✐ 04:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Of course some decision must be made. A decision for no deadline is simply a tacit decision to keep the image - basically, it means that the image can only go if it reaches 70% in favor of linking. This is a zero sum game - a simple majority is ultimately the only way to decide this. john k 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe a "yes" vote is a vote for "simple majority wins." If it's near a 50/50 split, there is obviously no concensus. Which is what the poll is intended to gauge, presumably. I understood it as "after an appropriately long amount of time, sort things out and come to a decision." TIMBO (T A L K) 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And who makes that decision? Another poll? LOL. 70% is the best way to avoid this. Cantus…☎ 06:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, some decision still has to be made. Arguing for 70% is simply arguing that the image should remain. The vote is clearly going to be close. If linking it wins by only a few votes, it seems absurd to keep it as it is because there is no consensus - there is no consensus for either option in such a situation, so why should the non-consensus position that received an absolute minority be the one accepted? john k 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to approach this problem from the point of view that "a decision has to be made." There is no rule that says a decision has to be made--indeed if there is a Wikipedia rule it is that decisions are made and enforced by consensus. If there is no such consensus then no decision can be made. Editors should deal with the page as they see fit, although it would be foolish to completely ignore a near-consensus vote for either option. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's because you don't want any final decision to be made. You want to keep arguing and arguing that is POV to link the image until people get tired and go away. —Cantus…☎ 11:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. As I've made plain prior to the poll, I'm happy with either an image or a link. I propose a deadline because this is recommended in Wikipedia:Survey guidelines and this was how the polls on Clitoris were managed. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to absorb its advice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to absorb its advice." I would advice that you do the same. —Cantus…☎ 11:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I made that 70% proposition, and as you know, I deeply oppose the showing of the image. I'm aiming here for a strong consensus. If we reach a deadline and the vote is a split, any consensus will be weak, and therefore people will want to make another poll. Cantus…☎ 06:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If, for instance, we could come to a consensus agreement that majority rules, even those who are defeated would agree that whatever reaches a majority was acceptable. Given that a 70% majority is highly unlikely, this seems to me the only fair way to settle it. john k 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that we'd reach a consensus that majority rules. We make decisions by consensus on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And how do you expect such a large group of people to reach a consensus? People in congress don't use consensus to get laws passed; yes, they discuss, but they ultimately vote, and majority wins. Same thing here. Establishing some sort of consensus with such a large number of people will be impossible and a vote and a clear winner are needed in this case. On the other hand, if this was a small issue about two or three people disagreeing with each other, then a consensus could be well be possible to achieve. Due to the large number of people involved in this, that will be impossible. —Cantus…☎ 11:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

"People in Congress don't use consensus." This is not Congress. On Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus. Surveys are not used to decide "clear winners", they used to determine whether a consensus exists or can be built. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. In particular, I caution you against any attempt to hijack this attempt to build consensus and attempt to turn it into a winner-takes-all poll. If as seems to be the case a substantial minority opposes a link, then all we will be able to say is that we could not reach consensus over whether to inline or have a link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But the large majority opted for not having that image there, and you want to be blind to that fact and do nothing because it suits your personal interests. That policy is flawed because it doesn't address issues where a large number of people is involved and where consensus, as the policy defines it, will be next to impossible to achieve. We can always change the policy. And of course this isn't congress; that was merely an example to illustrate a point. Don't take everything literally. —Cantus…☎ 11:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to change the Wikipedia policy of making decisions by consensus, and instead impose majority rule, then please feel free to make that policy proposal in the correct forum. Meanwhile we will use this poll to see if a consensus can be built, according to Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are working under the premise that continuing to vote forever and leaving the image inline would constitute "not making a decision". But, in effect, that means that the image stays inline unless 70% say it shouldn't. But this means that all it takes to keep it is 30%+1. How is this fair? In situations where compromise is possible, of course consensus must be reached. But in zero sum situations, a clear standard should be set. For something like deletion, it should be a supermajority, but for content disputes a majority is the only fair way to resolve it. john k 00:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. We make decisions by consensus on Wikipedia, not by majority vote. Contrary to your claim, failure to reach consensus is not an endorsement of inlining the image. The image could be left inline, removed or linked, but all that the poll says is that there would be no consensus for any one of those three actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I'd much prefer that the image stay inline, so this vote may seem counterproductive. But you see, I feel strongly that the filibuster-esque suggestion of maintaining the poll until it reaches clear majority (i.e. indefinitely) is a suggestion to undermine the democratic principles of Wikipedia. LizardWizard 08:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
yes. — Davenbelle 08:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. As with other Wikipolls, a clear consensus is required to change the status quo, but we should allow ample time for such consensus to be reached. ADH (t&m) 08:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. There should clearly be a deadline, albeit not in the immideate future. This needs some time.--TVPR 08:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Using some arbitrary super-majority as the goal seems absurd. --Calton 12:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Majority should win, as the status quo is not exactly vital and the two sides are at complete cross-purposes. Vacuum c 22:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. & supermajority (perhaps 70%) is good; 31-69 range means no consensus, & it should move on to RfC or VP-policy. If it takes broader consideration to resolve it, the effort should probably be harnessed into working up a long-term policy such as i propose in #Other/Comments at point 8. --Jerzy (t) 07:15, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Yes. Noisy | Talk 23:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Yes support deadline of March 20, 2005 Trödel|talk 03:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Okay, as of now (11:15 UST on 9 February 2005), 72% of those voting on this question want a deadline. Cantus, do you want to take that as a consensus, or do you want to set a deadline after which we count votes for and against having a deadline? :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use a 70% on this poll, then we would be invalidating this very own poll. Oh the irony. You see now that the only way we will get anything done is by defining by mathematical terms who the winner is? —Cantus…☎ 11:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would using the same standard that you propose for the main poll invalidate this poll? I'm quite happy to wait for a deadline on this poll if you prefer. I propose that we run this poll on whether to have a deadline on the main poll, until 20 February 2005, to see if we have a consensus (to be determined as >=70% of all votes) to have a deadline on the main poll. If alternatively you wish to accept the current >70% of all votes as a consensus, that is fine too. Whatever floats your boat. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can't use any of the standards we're deciding about on this poll to decide issues concerning this poll, because the standard itself has not yet being decided. We have to set an altogether different approach. —Cantus…☎ 11:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think we cannot use any of those standards? I'm perfectly happy to agree to either standard for the sake of the poll, and I see nobody else objecting. So take your pick. We can go for first to 70% (or whatever number you want to use) or else have a deadline and see if we have a consensus (again, name your favorite number) after that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. That would be like enforcing a law about enforcing laws to pass that very same law when that law has not yet passed. As I said above, we need to decide an altogether different approach to be used here. —Cantus…☎ 11:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm against a deadline basically because that 70% might be reached before that deadline. Being needlessly bound by a deadline when a clear decision has been made would be a waste of time. See poll below. —Cantus…☎ 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

If that's your basic objection then I have no objection to accepting first-to-70% with a deadline of 20 March. Abandoning the search for consensus, however, is out of the question. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on how to interpret the outcome of the link/inline poll

Initiated by Cantus…☎ 12:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

This poll is to decide what to do with the results of the poll #Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?.

Would you agree that we do set a deadline, but if any of the options reach a 70% before that deadline, that option is declared the winner, and if that doesn't occur before the deadline, the winner is any of the options which has the largest percentage up to that point (the deadline)?

This poll needs a minimum of 30 votes in total and any option a maximum of 70% of support to be declared a winner.

[edit] I agree

Yes. Cantus…☎ 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - This is the most sensible option and a fair compromise.
Vacuum c 02:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I do not agree

No. See comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No. The status quo is what we use when proposals fail. Consensus the other way (e.g. consensus to keep on VfD) isn't meaningful -- it's a one-way test, not a two-way. Of course, on VfD, it's somewhat more complicated because of the multiple outcomes, but they're typically handled in a tiered way. Our way of doing things is inherently conservative, but that's ok by me. --Improv 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but the status quo until quite recently, 6 Feb I believe, was to include a link. Vacuum c 00:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
no. (next poll should be about whether or not to have any more polls here) — Davenbelle 18:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
No. And since there will be no consensus reached (ever, I should think), I hope someone with more stamina than I is thinking about what to do next. NOT "another poll", NOT redefining who WINS (no one can win). A third, separate option. Though I doubt one really exists, given the extremism exhibited by some posters. Flyers13 21:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No. Noisy | Talk 23:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
No. That is no way to conduct a poll Gkhan 17:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I do not object to accepting a 70% consensus reached before the deadline, but I do object strongly to abandoning the principle of consensus if the deadline is reached. If no consensus is reached we should continue to try to make a consensus. This proposal constitutes an unacceptable attempt to hijack the survey process to produce a majority-wins vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That, my friend, will be the only way we will get anything decided here. Please accept this compromise. —Cantus…☎ 12:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia policy. I am not at liberty to abandon it, for I could not impose a majority rule on other editors, nor would ArbCom agree to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compromising is also policy (or should be). —Cantus…☎ 12:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Compromising is policy, it's part of finding consensus. But you're not really proposing compromise, you're proposing the abandonment of the search for consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say you wouldn't "object to accepting a 70% consensus reached before the deadline [...] If no consensus is reached we should continue to try to make a consensus." This is the same as waiting forever to reach a 70% of support. Or do you mean creating a new poll after the deadline? —Cantus…☎ 12:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

We should always search for consensus. If the deadline is reached and consensus cannot be reached on the original proposal (inline or link) then we must try to find other ways of reaching consensus on what to do. I don't mean that we continue to try to reach consensus on a proposal that fails to find consensus after six weeks--if that happens, we should just accept that as a failure to reach consensus and try to find other grounds for consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that a consensus must be reached to change the status quo is absurd. This means that if you have a significant minority, you can put whatever you want to on any wikipedia page, and then say that it has to stay because there's no consensus to remove it. If a consensus is not possible, as it is not in this instance, and compromise is not possible, as it is not in this case, since we only have the options of having it inline or not (Linking is already a compromise between having it and not having it at all), then a minority shouldn't be able to trump the views of a majority simply because the current version of the page has their preferred version on it. john k 00:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not having it at all isn't really an option. It was already on IfD and kept. So linking isn't actually a compromise in this case. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand by the rest of my comments, however. john k 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I agree that the situation you describe would be absurd, but that is not the situation pertaining on Wikipedia. All the poll does (so far) is establish that there is as yet no consensus either to inline or to link the picture. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing either (although doing so at present is, as we've seen, likely to provoke a sterile edit war resulting in the protection of the article). If we wait and discuss alternatives a consensus may or may not emerge; if we edit-war no such consensus will ever be possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking now?

Cantus has linked the image with the edit summary "Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community." (00:37, 10 Feb 2005). Well I reverted becuase I think it's obvious that 52 to 40 is not a consensus. At VfD, they define "rough consensus" as 2/3, and we don't even have that. Plus, the poll hasn't even concluded yet. And there are polls about how to interpret the first poll. Call me crazy... TIMBO (T A L K) 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to article

From the article edit summary:

Cantus replaced the image with a link with this text in the edit summary: "Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community."

Limeheadnyc (Timbo) reverted this saying: "rv -- the poll doesn't even show "rough concensus," let alone real concensus. And the poll hasn't concluded yet."

Now I ask, why should the image stay inline when the majority wants it linked? If the poll changes to an inline majority, then it should be changed again. Yes, back and forth. Inline voters will keep saying there is no concensus for a change because it suits them, because that means they can go on and on with this discussion and the image will stay inline. —Cantus…☎ 04:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're sore because of what happened at clitoris? The situations are different because there the vast majority was pro-pic. (As well as anti-disclaimer etc.) Granted it wasn't 100%, but the vast, vast majority was enough to warrant calling it consensus. Indeed, that majority was so strong that it got you blocked when you didn't comply. However, what we have here is nowhere near that. Calling your pov the "wishes of the community" is a bit spurious, and I think you know that. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see now that clean discussion is not in your book and are now resorting to personal attacks. Tsk-tsk. Actually my position ended up winning at Clitoris. I got the "pussy-spread" porno image removed and replaced with something more educational. —Cantus…☎ 05:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

As a close watcher of the clitoris dispute, I note that the poll supported the original "pussy spread" picture overwhelmingly. The picture came to be removed only because it was found to be a copy violation; the current picture has been strongly criticised by some because the clitoris is not as clearly displayed as the previous one; the search for a more suitable picture or pictures continues. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean no offense, and I apologize if any was taken. The fact remains, though, that there is no consensus. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity in a case as controversial and with as large a number of total votes as this, but it obviously doesn't mean 57% majority; thus while a reached consensus may enable action in the face of vehemently opposing editors, this does not qualify. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

57% is more than enough on split cases such as this. —Cantus…☎ 05:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure? Is one vote more than enough on a case like this? I would think that there would need to be sufficient consensus or else it seems a lot of people will get their revert-fingers ready (such as, for example, the 40 who voted "inline", and then the 52 who voted "link" in retaliation, ad infinitum). Any lasting action must come from consensus. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is conceivable, as I noted earlier, that a determined majority of 57% could impose linking by edit-warring. But that kind of behavior would likely lead to arbitration. ArbCom would in my estimation be unlikely to rule that a majority is acceptable in cases like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Copied here from above section by Cantus:) I reverted becuase I think it's obvious that 52 to 40 is not a consensus. At VfD, they define "rough consensus" as 2/3, and we don't even have that. Plus, the poll hasn't even concluded yet. And there are polls about how to interpret the first poll. Call me crazy... TIMBO (T A L K) 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is crazy is to keep showing the image when 57% thinks otherwise. —Cantus…☎ 05:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

If in the current climate of opinion you can find a way to perform the edit to link the image and have nobody restore it, please feel free to do so. In principle I see no problem with this, or agreeing to alternate linking and inlining in shifts of one or two days, while we continue to search for consensus on what, ultimately, we should do with the image. It would have helped, though, if you had made any such proposal prior to engaging in edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes, there are 52 who want a link and 40 who want inline. That's only a slight majority. My previous comments remain valid. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, Cantus. 57% isn't far from either 67% or 47%. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 05:17 Z

The difference between 47% and 57% is that 57% is an absolute majority and 47% is not. —Cantus…☎ 05:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

There should always be more than a bare majority for the reduction of content on wikipedia. If there was a clear and explicit policy backing the vote, then the degree of consensus required would be more flexible, but that is not the case. The presumption is always that content shall remain, unabridged, absent a sufficient consensus or clear policy to the contrary. If the margin of votes doesn't move significantly from where it is now, the default of the image remaining inline would apply. Postdlf 05:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please show which policy supports your claims. Geni 05:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What policy supports my claim that there is no policy underlying this vote? Or what policy supports my claim that content should not be removed (hidden in this case) from wikipedia without a compelling reason?

This whole process has been a mess. Other articles have had polls regarding certain editorial decisions, which may remain contentious after a long period of time, but at least it is clear what is trying to be accomplished, because wikipedia has explicit standards of scholarship that are inherently bound with the purpose at which we task here—the disagreements for the most part are scholarly ones of fact and interpretation. That is not the case here. Instead we have an ad hoc vote based on gut feeling of "offense" or "appropriateness", without a serious discussion of what that means in this context, or any kind of assurance that this isn't merely a proxy for narrow cultural views of sexual morality and decency. Those who think that it is obvious that the image is offensive in some objectively identifiable way have obviously missed the fact that there has been a long debate about this. So without an explicit standard, without defined terms, without logical explanations of why the remedy must follow the "offense" of being "offensive", without a clear sense of what consequences would follow, if any, if the image isn't hidden, we've just had a fairly superficial head count on whether an image that illustrates the article should be removed on unclear reasons that have nothing to do with accuracy, NPOV, relevance, nothing bound to what wikipedia is about.

Is it really so much to ask, under those circumstances, that before the image is hidden the head count is at least damn substantial? Postdlf 06:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

57% is substantial. —Cantus…☎ 06:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

That is not something you have agreement on. That is rarely, if ever considered substantial in VfD, where we have clear policy guidelines regarding original research, vanity pages, etc. Why should that be substantial here where there is no general, agreed-upon rationale for "offensive" images? Postdlf 06:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you're questioning a validity of the vote? You're implying that the people who voted for linking the image are stupid and bla bla bla. And you, of course, is aware of consequences so your vote is better than mine. Sorry, but you look like a sore Kerry supporter. It's obvious that your position would never be supported by majority. 57 is always more than 40. Live with it. Grue 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an election, though. It's a content dispute. Wiki works by consensus (or at least rough consensus). If you have that, then you can say "Live with it" to the minority. That's what happened at clitoris. Until then, we've got 52 to 40 – a weak majority. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, consensus would be ideal. Given the number of votes on each side at this point, there will not be a consensus. A consensus is absolutely impossible when 52 people feel one way and 40 feel another. Even if a hundred more people show up and all vote one way, that's still not a consensus - 152 to 40 is a large supermajority, but not a consensus. Consensus is already completely impossible in this binary situation. Obviously, there is no possible compromise (well - we could find another image that offends fewer people, but assuming we don't do that...). Which means that the question is whether, in the absence of consensus, a simple majority should decide; or whether the burden of proof is on those wanting to link, and thus a supermajority is required for a link. The argument has nothing to do with consensus. The issue at hand is whether or not the burden is on those wanting to remove something to provide a supermajority. Given that we are not proposing removing the image (which seems absurd to me, btw - it is pretty clearly commercial pornography, with no real redeeming value), I see no particular reason why the burden should be on those wanting to link it. john k 08:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago Cantus suggested 70% as the bar for a consensus, and there was general agreement to this (at the time it looked as if the link option would romp home on this criterion). Although I recognise that the current vote shows a clear majority for linking, this is not the consensus we all agreed to in advance. Indeed as time has gone on the initial high support for the link option has (to my surprise) tended to erode and it is not inconceivable that over time the positions could be reversed, with an equally high majority for inlining. See my other comments on your belief that the status quo would be supported by default--it simply would not. There is no inherent bias on Wikipedia, and it is quite possible that a 56% (or whatever) majority could impose its will (most of the time) on this page in the absence of a consensus, if all were willing to engage in edit warring. But that isn't the way we do things on Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So what are you arguing for as the basic principle here, Tony? Now, 70% would be nice. But if 70% cannot be achieved, what then? On what principle should the minority position be preferred in the absence of the supermajority? john k 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

70% isn't just "nice", it is the criterion agreed in advance. If neither option achieves that level, then the poll has failed to establish a consensus. See my other comments about your belief that failure to establish a consensus would favor the minority position. Failure to establish a consensus favors neither. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A 70% criterion was never agreed in advance. —Cantus…☎

I think you're techhically correct--my apologies. I think it was very shortly after Sannse suggested the poll and we started voting that you made the following suggestion:

When does the poll end? How is the result interpreted? I suggest a minimum of 30 votes (votes for inline + votes for link = 30) and a 70% of support for one of the two choices. After that the change (if necessary edit-wise) must be made. —Cantus…☎ 01:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

You seemed to be perfectly happy with this at the time, and so was I. In fact, I don't recally any dissent on your suggestion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was certainly no agreement from me to a specific value, in fact I said that I regarded all these extra criteria as far too complicated. I also see no reason why, in a split vote, the default should be to show the image - this is not the same as a vote for deletion where "keep" is the default. And, I'm afraid, all these votes on how to interpret the vote are just silly. Whatever happened to common sense? This really is turning into a candidate for silliest wars ever. My own view of how this should end is obvious, but I really don't see a point in being involved in this dispute at this point. I think this is an issue where a general policy needs to be worked out - if that's impossible, then maybe this is a case where a project-wide top-down decision is needed. I would hate to see that, but if we can't agree then I suspect Jimbo is going to have to do so for us. The mess here is downright depressing -- sannse (talk) 12:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well 70% is on the low side for consensus (I think the lowest practical value I've seen is 2/3, applied by some admins on VfD duty). I still think it's perfectly acceptable. Far from being silly, I think this is turning out to be a very interesting poll. My earlier belief that we had the makings of a consensus on linking has been severely challenged; nor do we have consensus on inline display. I doubt that we would win consensus on *not* displaying the picture, but if we are still deadlocked after six weeks it may be worth a try.

I agree with your point on a split vote. If we don't get consensus on inline or link, there should be no "default". Editors may want to try fiddling with layout or the form of linking (a very small thumbnail could be used, for instance) and experimentaiton of this kind could well achieve consensus that seems to be eluding us in this vote.

Of course it is always possible that, with the generous six week deadline, we may see people voting for link "just to help to get a usable consensus". If there were strong signs of this happening and very few new votes for inline in the week before March 20 I would be in favor of extending the deadline and I'm sure you'd have no trouble getting consensus on such an extension. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative suggestions would be very welcome -- sannse (talk) 16:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is what I said all along. Wait forever until we get that 70%. —Cantus…☎ 16:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the optimistic scenario I described above should come to pass, I'd not oppose an extension of the deadline. But that doesn't mean "wait forever until we get that 70%." At some point it may become clear that the 70% is extremely unlikely ever to happen. That point doesn't seem so far off now, but we have weeks to go yet and things could change. People could start to come back in great numbers and change their votes, even. That cannot be ruled out as yet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection End of discussion

Latest protection by silsor guarantees the wishes of the community to link the image will never be enforced. Thank you very much. This is the end of the discussion. The image stays forever. Thanks to everybody who participated. —Cantus…☎ 06:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

But surely the community's wishes of which you speak wouldn't let that happen. Or are the admins all ganging up against the entire community again? TIMBO (T A L K) 06:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you questioned my on my user talk page about it you requested that I not be rude in my response. You certainly seem to have no difficulty speaking rudely about me here. silsor 06:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The stated purpose of protection in our policies is to cool a controversy, in support of achieving consensus. Silsor's judgement that the need exists seems reasonable on this, especially in light of one editor's rush to act on the basis of a majority that is far from our typical consensuses and far from the deadline for declaring failure to reach consensus.

And lest anyone be fooled, in case it's not obvious: one editor cannot override the pretty strong consensus reached here already, about how to run the poll, by declaring the "end of the discussion." --Jerzy (t) 07:34, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Look up hyperbole. —Cantus…☎ 07:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

You'll do better ~~here~~ if you respect the seriousness of the discussion by saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. --Jerzy (t) 09:06 & 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

You'll do better here if you stopped removing my messages on grounds of personal attacks. Please stop doing that. —Cantus…☎ 10:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

While removing msgs seems to be a popular and accepted method of removing personal attacks, that is not what i have done: i consider worthwhile the greater effort of preserving the legitimate substance of the msg while removing the attack. The removal in question is, IIRC, my 2nd here, the other being also re a personal attack by you on a colleague.

(This is an effort by me to remove material in a category that, according to a clear consensus and formal policy, is harmful to this community, and as i just said, i do it in a way that preserves the informational content. You have now twice labelled it "censorship", evoking a term that is usually, i.e. outside this context, contrary to WP policy. (By that you attempt to divert attention from your flouting of a rock-solid WP policy against personal attacks.) And you attempt, in contrast to my practice, to suppress all record on the page of that criticism of your behavior as personal attacks. You don't want your personal attacks censored into relevant comments, but you want to censor into virtual invisibility criticism of your behavior that violates WP policy. You have the right to complain about my removing your attacks (despite removal's wide acceptance by the community, and my extra care to limit its scope), but no right to hide off this page, by use of simple reversion, the implicit characterization of your edits as personal attacks.)

Your best strategy for stopping my removal of personal attacks by you would be ceasing your personal attacks.

--Jerzy (t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I regret my use (in my last msg abv this one that is less indented than this one) of the word "here", which in context implied i thought Cantus was a still-ignorant newbie who recently wandered in off the Web. They have in fact been a notably busy editor for about a year, with some good-sounding work under their belt. --Jerzy (t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I (Jerzy) replaced "Look up" in Cantus's (C for short) remark with (sig replaced here by the first ellipsis)

[Personal attack removed by ...; substance was "I was using..."].

in accord with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. C summarized their rv of that edit w/

Jerzy, please stop removing my message // if that was ever a personal attack, it was an attack on myself. My OWN hyperbole. Get it???? Stop censoring.

Cantus does not understand, or pretends not to, that the personal attack on me was not the use of the word "hyperbole", which i left intact (and which IMO obviously referred to C's remarks not mine), but the sarcastic "Look up", which obviously was directed at me and which i replaced. Clearly C could not make such a mistake except by failing to consider my obvious assertion that "Look up" was a personal attack whose legitimate informational substitute is "I [C] was using ...".

C used that imperative in a way that implies that the source of our disagreement about C's earlier remark was ignorance on my part. (C neither denies doing so intentionally, nor has apologized for doing it unintentionally.) In fact, it should be obvious that no one in this discussion needs to look up "hyperbole", and implying that i am an exception to that is a personal attack in violation of WP policy.

C must tone down the rhetoric and avoid personal attacks, whether intended or not. An example of C's excess (especially egregious since in a summary (cited above in this contrib) and thereby unalterable) is, in the course of 26 words, the shouting of "own", the gratuitous "get it?", and the quadruple question mark: these constitute another personal attack on me, as being obviously dull witted on the evidence that i removed an attack next to something else that C and i agree was not a personal attack on anyone (unless on C themself). And C has been here long enough to be required to understand that although we don't censor encyclopedic material (even if it has potential pornographic value), we do censor personal attacks. --Jerzy (t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I didn't protect this page on my own initiative; Here is the request that I acted on. The request asks for a specific version to be protected; I ignored that part and protected whatever happened to be on top. silsor 07:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

We can ask for protection to be removed and this will happen unless it is plain that the parties involved will simply resume their edit-warring. I shall give everybody twenty-four hours to cool off and then, unless there are still ongoing threats to edit war, I shall ask for the protection to be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I shall give everybody twenty-four hours to cool off" -- You would do well in improving your language, Tony. That sounded quite bossy. —Cantus…☎ 10:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a naturally bossy person. I think twenty-four hours should be ample. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's all in your head, Tony. —Cantus…☎ 11:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like to think we're all grown-ups and will recognise that edit warring won't achieve the consensus we all seek. I hope that isn't too unrealistic, but you could be right. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dunno get both side to nominacte a champion edit warrior and leave them to fight it out would probably be more peacful than the current situationGeni 13:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things have calmed down a bit. I've asked for the article to be unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ok, why is the image still inline at this moment?

you guys really know how to make a poll confusing to the point of pointlessness. I agree that we should strive for consensus (this means, compromise), and failing that, at least for consensus of a large majority (like 70%). The question is, what to do while consensus is being built. At the moment we have 55 votes for linking the image and 41 for keeping it inline. It seems very evident, therefore, that until we come up with a more broadly accepted solution, the image should be linked to. dab (ᛏ) 13:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose this based on my many comments etc. It's POV no matter how you slice it. Be that as it may, there is not yet consensus to enforce this view (however clearly it is governed by existing POV policies, since people disagree). There is no consensus to enforce linking the image either -- there are two substantial and conflicting viewpoints. I hope we all try to build consensus, but while we do, mandating interim action based on slight majority is absurd. Everyone is free to edit the article as he/she sees fit, but I hope we will all realize that edit wars are the inevitable result without consensus. So go ahead, link the image. I hope you won't take offense, however, when I revert you. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly not oppose this. Be aware that such an edit may prove controversial, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that:

(cur) (last) 08:22, 10 Feb 2005 Silsor (protected)
(cur) (last) 07:47, 10 Feb 2005 SPUI (ooh, rv war fun)
(cur) (last) 07:46, 10 Feb 2005 Grue m (I have more spare rvs than you)
(cur) (last) 07:34, 10 Feb 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv again -- see my comments at the talk page)
(cur) (last) 07:29, 10 Feb 2005 Grue m (rv wars are fun, for sure. mise well participiate)
(cur) (last) 07:20, 10 Feb 2005 Postdlf m (Reverted edits by Cantus to last version by Davenbelle)
(cur) (last) 07:09, 10 Feb 2005 Cantus (rv -- follow majority)
(cur) (last) 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 Davenbelle (rv -- ibid)
(cur) (last) 07:04, 10 Feb 2005 Geni (rv since there is no consenus or defult under these cercemstances we might as well follow the majority.)
(cur) (last) 06:41, 10 Feb 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv -- the poll doesn't even show "rough concensus," let alone real concensus. And the poll hasn't concluded yet.)
(cur) (last) 06:37, 10 Feb 2005 Cantus (Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community.)

So, have fun. --gcbirzan^talk 14:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do not have consensus to do anything. Until and unless we do, we stay with the status quo, which is to keep the image. It is unclear if the proposal to remove the images will ever go over the normal 70% to reach consensus, so there's a good chance that the image will stay for good, or at least until/unless at some later time someone manages to get enough of a force behind them to mandate their removal. --Improv 15:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ipse dixit, eh? :-) --gcbirzan^talk 18:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The status quo until very recently was a link. Here's the relevant history (my comments in [brackets]):

(cur) (last) 10:17, Sep 23, 2004 N1ck (wiki-compliant image link) [first image first added, as link]
(cur) (last) 05:51, Nov 13, 2004 Cantus (rm porn pic) [remove]
(cur) (last) 07:39, Nov 14, 2004 Limeheadnyc m (revert -- start a discussion on the talk page if you want to remove the link to the picture) [link]
(cur) (last) 00:01, Jan 6, 2005 Tony Sidaway (Since someone has cited this as a precedent for censorship, let's test the precedent) [inline]
(cur) (last) 00:28, Jan 6, 2005 Everyking (i think that's a bit extreme, tony) [link]
(cur) (last) 01:45, Jan 8, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (Can't think of a good reason to link to this when I've never seen a link used elsewhere.) [inline]
(cur) (last) 02:56, Jan 11, 2005 Rdsmith4 m (rm deleted image) [remove]
(cur) (last) 21:31, Jan 11, 2005 Tony Sidaway (New image to replace the deleted one) [replacement image, inline]
(cur) (last) 20:02, Jan 16, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (put back Autofellatio.jpg) [remove replacement; add original, inline]
(cur) (last) 18:26, Jan 24, 2005 141.30.220.106 (removed offensive image) [remove]
(cur) (last) 18:27, Jan 24, 2005 Fvw m (Reverted edits by 141.30.220.106 to last version by Limeheadnyc) [inline]
(cur) (last) 23:39, Jan 24, 2005 61.7.2.216 [remove]
(cur) (last) 23:48, Jan 24, 2005 Raul654 m (Reverted edits by 61.7.2.216 to last version by Limeheadnyc) [inline]
(cur) (last) 12:42, Jan 31, 2005 Cantus [link]
(cur) (last) 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv deletion of image) [inline]
(cur) (last) 23:35, Jan 31, 2005 Cantus m [inline, 50px]
(cur) (last) 00:08, Feb 1, 2005 Cantus [remove]
(cur) (last) 00:35, Feb 1, 2005 Cantus [link with {{offensive image}} template]

... at which point, the revert wars started in earnest. —Korath (Talk) 18:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the image was fairly consistently inlined from January 6 through early February. The poll was initiated February 3rd. Since I switched it to inline Jan 6, all attempts to link it have failed. Hence this poll to see if a consensus can be raised either for inline or for link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The status quo is that we have no policy suggesting we keep images that may be offensive out of articles. Cantus, you want to change that, get the consensus to do so. Until then, understand that there's no policy nor strawpoll where you've achieved the consensus needed to keep such images out. --Improv 20:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the status quo is simply undefined. this is related to "the wrong version". Before the image was inserted, the bloody status quo was 'no image', wasn't it? dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thus spoke Jimbo

Thus spoke Jimbo. 'nuff said. Discussion closed. Samboy 05:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's truly pathetic. Out. Thanks to all editors who at least tried to establish some consensus. Flyers13 06:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So what's the deal - are we still treating Jimbo's edicts as case law? --SPUI (talk) 06:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. He's pretty benevolent, as dictators go. And we wouldn't have an encyclopedia to work on if he didn't continue providing it. foobaz·✐ 06:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure we could. It's all GFDL, remember? --gcbirzan^talk 07:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Servers aren't free. Nor is bandwidth. It wouldn't be the first Wiki fork if you did it. Samboy 07:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well... --Jimbo Wales 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo has spoken

Oh praise the lord! —Cantus…☎ 06:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aah, now the true agenda revealed! Not "we must link", but now "remove the link!", and, soon, doubtless, "remove the article". Nice. Wouldn't want to offend any random Red People reading up on silly sexual articles. --Flyers13 (unsigned)

A lot of people don't know that slippery slope thinking is a fallacy. Samboy 07:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what a "random Red Person" is, but please do keep in mind that I'm hardly one to be offended by anything.

[edit] Raul's convo

(CC'd to talk:Jimbo Wales)

For the benefit of people reading this, I had a conversation with Jimbo about this a few days ago. Here's a small snippet which might help you to understand his reasoning:

[17:05] <Raul654> Ok, then *why* exactly are you deleting it?

[17:05] <Raul654> you aren't deleting it because it is a copyvio

[17:05] <jwales> Right.

[17:05] <Raul654> you aren't deleting it because it could offend people

[17:05] <Raul654> then why exactly do you want it deleted?

[17:06] <Raul654> I'm missing something here

[17:06] <jwales> Because it is a horrible picture. It adds nothing of value. It is unserious. It is demeaning.

Jimbo did not delete it for censorship reasons. He deleted it because it is his opinion that the article is not more informative because of the picture (I disagree with this asseration, for the record). As such, he would like it deleted. He also went on to say (although I could very well be misinterpreting him and he is free to correct me on this) that if someone could find a "clinical" photo to add to the article he would be fine by it. (By which, I assume he meant inlined, as with Clitoris, which he mentioned as a good example of how to handle a situation like this) →Raul654 07:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

He probably referred to a simple drawing. All in all, I believe this encyclopedia now has a much brighter future. Inline absolutists have been sorely defeated. They will now propose new less offensive photos (?!) and other naughty drawings of the act. But they will have to seek community support before implementing such changes. Let this new era begin! —Cantus…☎ 07:31, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not community support. Support from one person. --SPUI (talk) 08:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image anyway. I just removed it from the page while the poll continues. I'm confident that the poll will go the right way and that'll be the end of it.--Jimbo Wales 09:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you go to that page and vote then? If you vote for delete, I suspect many more will follow you. The logic that this porno picture should be kept apparently is that the picture supposedly "illustrates" the act and is "educational." Oh really? Should we also post child pornography for "educational purposes"? How about bestiality porn for educational purposes? If those can't be posted because they might be illegal, then this picture is also probably illegal in some countries. What is the policy then? You need to take the stand and clearly define the policy OneGuy 09:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales would be voting so that people follow his lead, that would be an appeal to authority. Child pornography... what's "educational" about it? That's "pornography", pure and simple. This, however, has an educational value.

More to the point, putting pornographic pictures on a pornography article might be on topic, but it's still pornography, as its name suggests. Putting a picture of a man performing autofellatio on the autofellatio page might be disgusting to some people, but you can't consider it pornography more than you can consider the images on Clitoris pornography. Personally, I would consider Image:Three.jpg pornography more than this one, since it doesn't really add much to the article.

--gcbirzan^talk 10:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Since I did not post any argument, how can there be a fallacy in anything I wrote? I gave a suggestion how he can get more people to vote for delete. I don't even think there should be a vote on this. As the site owner, he should define the policy on prono pictures and delete all porno pictures based on that policy (including the picture "three" you refer above) OneGuy 11:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I think it's a lovely picture. But that is a matter of taste. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rv to inline because no policy page or legal requirement cited. When Jimbo's statement is incorporated in policy, then his action may be acceptable, until then it is just North American double standards. I'd be content if there was a policy statement somewhere that stated what is and what isn't acceptable, but until that time, and I've had the opportunity to vote on the level of censorship to be applied, then a poorly argued action like this is not on. Noisy | Talk 11:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

what absolute twaddle. it's not double standards, it's common sense. if you read Jimbo's statement, you will see that he takes into account that there is no community consensus to keep it. American relativism is just as bad as American double standards. If you expect that we're adding a paragraph to policy for every porn image people upload (such as "no images of men sucking their own penis"), you are a fool. dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the point? We're having an enormous debate here about a single image. Do we want to repeat this for every single image? Or every subject? Or every political point of view? What is "common sense"? What is "a horrible picture. It adds nothing of value. It is unserious. It is demeaning." if not a personal viewpoint? This debate will only end if Jimbo writes a coherent policy on the level of censorship to be applied across the Wikipedia, because – let's face it – we're not going to agree amongst ourselves. I don't have a problem with nudity, but an image of an operation would turn my stomach. That's my personal viewpoint. Every single one of us will have a different viewpoint. If there were a single view laid down by a single person, then there wouldn't be any argument. "No nudity" – fine. "No graphic depiction of the infliction of pain, unless a line drawing" – fine. "Vote on every single image that might cause offence to one or two people! – not fine. Noisy | Talk 12:02, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even though I don't think the vote is necessary (as the owner of the site, Jimbo should delete it right away), vote for delete is on this page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion OneGuy 11:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image poll

Okay, there are many opinions out there. I thought I'd bring this all to one place. This vote concerns whether to use an image on this article, and, if so, which one (or ones). Static versions of all images are used, so that if someone overwrites an image, it won't affect the vote. The images have been removed from the article, pending the outcome of this vote. This vote will end on February 20, 2005.

Image 1: [3] (NOTE: Image 1 is claimed by some editors to be a Copyvio on the grounds that a thumbnail from the same series.)
Image 2: [4]
Image 3: [5]

Please leave only your vote in the voting sections. All comments should go in the comments section.

[edit] We should use only image 1 in the article.

Carnildo 23:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We should use only image 2 in the article.

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy 05:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We should use only image 3 in the article.

[edit] We should use more than one of the above images in the article.

Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
LizardWizard 00:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
gcbirzan^talk 00:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Only Image 2 and 3 are acceptable. ALKIVAR™ 09:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Only image 1 and 2 are acceptable. Sam Hocevar 18:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We should not use any of the above three images in the article.

Davenbelle 23:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
None of these should be inline. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Any comments in the voting sections above should be moved here.
~~All three if 3 can be established to be a form of autofellation. Otherwise~~ 1 and 2, either alone or together, are suitable for illustrating this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This "illustrating the article" can't be a justification for uploading porn. There should be a clear policy. Should we allow people to upload child porn to "illustrate" (what a joke) what child porn is? And other graphic porn "illustrating" bestiality, anal sex, urolagnia, rapes, necrophilia? That's just a nonsensical excuse for allowing people to upload porn. The policy on this should be clearly defined, and all porno pictures should be deleted. I don't see what's the point of this poll anyway. The site owner should define the rules on porn. He has already said this image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline. That should be the end of the debate. Someone can always start their own Pornopedia if they disagree. OneGuy 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is pornography? Who defines it, and how? --Carnildo 23:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The site owner should define it, but I can make my own definition anyway if you want: "Sexually explicit pictures that have any connection to sexual arousal. Delete all such pictures." Simple policy. OneGuy 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pornography ceases to be pornography when it becomes encyclopedic, because then sexual titillation is no longer its sole purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Try uploading child porn on Wikipedia and see if law enforcement agencies agree with that argument OneGuy 23:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an image that, on a kiddie porn site, would be illegal child pornography, but here on Wikipedia, would be legal (at least in the United States), informative and encyclopedic. The problems with uploading it, however, would be that other jurisdictions would consider to still be illegal, and that I doubt such an image would be GFDL-compatible. --Carnildo 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now here we have someone arguing that uploading child porn on Wikipedia would be justified too. This just goes on to show that the kind arguments used to keep this porno picture can be used by trolls to upload all kinds of porn ( and cry "censorship" if they are deleted). Jimbo should take a note of this and delete this picture and all subsequent porn that might be uploaded to the site.OneGuy 01:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At a glance: straw man, slippery slope. --gcbirzan^talk 01:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He did say uploading child porn would be legal "here on Wikipedia, would be legal (at least in the United States)" Making the argument for having stricter policy on porn stronger :)) OneGuy 02:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I meant people using this argument in this case will lead to people uploading all kinds of porn (i.e. child porn), therefore this argument is bad. I am also going to add appeal to authority to that. Before you start showting, Jimbo is the one that makes the rules, you should see that he deferred the decision to us. So, your argument is reduced to Jimbo agrees with me, therefore I am right. So, you must be wrong. ■ :-) gcbirzan^talk 02:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never said that since Jimbo Whales agrees with me that's why I am right. See Straw man. I said that since Jimbo Whales is the final authrority, his decision will be the final one, regadless of wheter you are right or wrong (and since you are also wrong, it would be a just decision too). OneGuy 02:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well child pornography is illegal because there is a statute against it and that statute (in most countries) provides for no study exemptions. So you're not really addressing my point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's your assertion that pornography cease to be pornography. I see no reason to agree with you, especially given that Wikipedia is online Encyclopedia where anyone can abuse it by uploading all sorts of graphic porn with a nonsensical excuse that he uploaded it to "illustrate" whatever. That's why the policy should be clearly defined (as I did above) and all porn deleted. OneGuy 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be trying for a slippery slope argument, but that argument was lost the minute the first erect penis was posted on Wikipedia. Things that may be pornographic in one context are not pornographic in another. It is also the case that Wikipedia will always need pornography, if only to illustrate the article on pornography. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The minute the first erect penis was uploaded doesn't imply that I lost the argument. All porn should be deleted no matter when they were uploaded. I already defined above what would qualify as "porn." You have asserted that porn uploaded to an internet encyclopedia ceases to be porn. That's just an assertion, and I don't agree with that assertion OneGuy 00:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're not required to agree with it, and you can't just go around redefining the meaning of pornography to suit your wishes either. A picture of an erect penis on penis serves to illustrate the article. If people want to get all funky over that picture, well that's fine too, but it's not what it's there for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who redefined pornography by asserting that anything uploaded by anyone to an internet encyclopedia (child porn, bestiality, anal sex, necrophilia, whatever) ceases to be porn. That's pretty absurd and ridiculous assertion. Since this is an online encyclopedia open to all kinds of abuse, the policy should make it clear that porn uploaded to the site (see the definition above) should be deleted immediately without any debate OneGuy 00:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a ridiculous assertion, but that assertion is yours. My assertion was this: Pornography ceases to be pornography when it becomes encyclopedic, because then sexual titillation is no longer its sole purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And that assertion implies that anything (child porn, bestiality, anal sex, necrophilia, etc.,) uploaded by anyone to this online encyclopedia ceases to be pornography. That kind of reasoning should not be allowed as a justification to keep this porno picture or any other graphic porn uploaded to the site by abusive trolls. That's why Jimbo needs to clearly define the policy to prevent such abuses, as happened in this case OneGuy 00:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave you to puzzle out the logical fallacy in your reasoning. I've made it plain that I do not regard the mere uploading of pornography to Wikipedia and its inclusion in articles as acceptable. I've shown you the words I used and yet you continue to claim that they mean something else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have tried to justify keeping porn uploaded to the site by some troll by claiming the picture "illustrates" something and so it became "encyclopedic." This kind of absurd reasoning to keep porn on the site can be used by abusive trolls to upload all kinds of graphic porn. That's why I suggested a clear policy to prevent such abuses. OneGuy 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're using loaded language. Someone uploads a picture of autofellatio and uses it to illustrate an article about autofellatio. There's no way that the picture would be retained on the article if it didn't illustrate autofellatio. You seem to be determined to describe this as an abuse but you to do not seem to be able to articulate in what way it is an abuse to illustrate an article about a sex act with a picture of the sex act. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are using absurd justifications to keep a porno picture uploaded by a troll. We have articles on child porn, bestiality, anal sex, urolagnia. Should we allow trolls to use those articles as a justification to upload all kinds of graphic porn to the site? Where is the limit? This just proves that the only solution to this kind of abuse would be to make it a policy to delete all porn uploaded to the site without a debate. Jimbo should take a note of that OneGuy 01:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not using absurd justifications. I'm pointing out that you're using loaded language, calling people "trolls" and their actions "abuses". Now you ask a question: Should we allow trolls to use those articles as a justification to upload all kinds of graphic porn to the site? My answer is "No." However we should illustrate our article appropriately and without undue prudishness. Illustrations of many of the sex acts you list above are obscene in the state of Florida, so they could not be uploaded legally. The others, well it would depend on whether the article was better with them than without. You seem to be pushing for a draconian ban on all lewd images simply because of this idea that Wikipedia will fill up with objectionable material. Well, if you want that you're in the wrong place. Go to Wikipedia:Current surveys and you'll find that there is an ongoing policy discussion on what to do about potentially objectionable images. You won't get anywhere here, this is just the talk page for Autofellatio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just called a spade a spade. Someone without that much of a history uploads a picture of a man sucking his own penis. I would say that's a troll. The picture should have been deleted immediately. You are now arguing that since the picture "illustrates" autofellatio, that's a valid justification to keep the picture. My answer is that that's an absurd justification, just as it would be absurd to keep child porn on the site to "illustrate" child porn uploaded by a troll. What's so hard to understand about that? Jimbo apparently reads this, so he should note the problem, and clearly define the policy on porn uploaded by trolls OneGuy 02:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I expect that, having made his own opinion clear, he will trust the community to reach the right decision. Which may not be the one he himself would be prefer.

I simply cannot believe that you think that illustrating an article is not what images are good for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, there should be some limit, just as pictures of child porn cannot be used to illustrate the article child porn, this picture cannot be used to illustrate this article. Where is the limit? What's the policy ? Jimbo can make the policy here by deleting this picture. OneGuy 04:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you don't yet realise that nobody is arguing that there should not be some limit, but in general everybody disagrees with the idea that there should be a rigid limit. Here's a proposal that got a very strong consensus in the discussion on potentially objectionable images:

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.

That proposal got a clear consensus with 33 for and 5 against.

So what do you think the chances are that a rigid policy of the kind that you propose will be implemented?

I think our existing rather flexible policies work quite well. An image must be legal and should make the article it illustrates better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that policy obviously did not work because in this case clearly some porn was uploaded by some unknown person (most likely a troll), yet the picture was not removed from the site. Moreover, this case dragged on for months with useless debate about how the uploaded porn "illustrate" the article, until Jimbo removed the porn from the article. The policy was a failure, and there is no reason to believe why this kind of nonsense will not be repeated again in other articles (anal sex, bestiality, child porn, etc). Jimbo himself needs to define a policy. He should make it clear that admins can delete all porn right away, especially since as an online encyclopedia any abusive troll can upload all kinds of porn to the site OneGuy 06:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In that case, maybe you could get thing started by listing the images at IFD. A few good sources for porn images in the encyclopedia would be List of sex positions and subarticles, and many of the articles listed at Category:Sexology and Category:Pornography. --Carnildo 08:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of the illustrations in List of sex positions are graphic porn like this autofellatio picture. Potentially that article can also be a target of trolls who may try to disrupt Wikipedia by uploading porn and then justify their abusive behavior by using the same absurd arguments people used to keep this porno pictures on wikipedia. Wikipedia would be blocked by all child protection software, some ISPs, and countries where porn is illegal. It's harmful to wikipedia, and it opens the door to trolls to disrupt Wikipedia and then cry "censorship." A clear policy is needed to deal with the problem, as I suggested above OneGuy 08:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This poll should continue to run in order to allow for full expression of opinion on this complex topic, but in the meantime showing such a photo absent overwhelming community support is unhelpful.

The way I read it, the owner is saying we should decide what to do with the image. Can you, please, stop setting up straw men and start working towards agreement?

P.S. This is neither ad hominem, nor a personal attack: you only present the part of Jimbo's argument that suits you and you presented the same arguments earlier, I me and Quadell replied to them, but you didn't reply back.

--gcbirzan^talk 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, he clearly said the image is not acceptable. That part was pretty clear. He should clearly define the rules on porn instead of having this poll again. As a site owner, he will make the decision in the end anyway OneGuy 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel like in literature class, let's try to figure out what Jimbo actually wanted to say. :-) Personally, I read his comments as I would really like you people to vote against the picture being on Wikipedia, as I hate the picture. However, I will let you decide what to do with it. Of course, I could be waaay off... --gcbirzan^talk 23:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you simply read what he wrote instead of interpreting it, you won't feel like being in a literature class. This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline. That's pretty clear. OneGuy 23:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that Jimbo also said, above, "I didn't decide the case."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it.

I didn't delete the image anyway. I just removed it from the page while the poll continues. I'm confident that the poll will go the right way and that'll be the end of it

Read those. If he wanted it gone, he would've deleted it, but he didn't.

--gcbirzan^talk 23:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above quote doesn't contradict this: "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline" OneGuy 00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you interpret it as this image must be deleted without a poll, as you seem to be doing, yes, it does. --gcbirzan^talk 00:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The explicit photo is out per Jimbo (which would apply to any similarly explicit photo); The illustration is a very poor one (I would support a better illustration); The cat is plain silly (it is unknown just what the cat is doing and it may be female). Focus people; let's end this silliness. — Davenbelle 23:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

The explicit photo is not out per Jimbo. As he said, he did not decide the case. He removed the image pending consensus to keep. The cat, of course, is supposedly licking its penis to clean it, which is not, IMHO, autofellatio. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's have it in full: I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well...

So it seems that while he personally finds the image extremely distasteful he wants the decision (the desired outcome of which he strongly telegraphs) to be made by the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not an edict, but a clear enough opinion. Don't pee in the wind. — Davenbelle 00:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edicts are edicts and opinions are opinions. I'm dry. How are you? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The inclusion of image #1 above is being voted on above. Voting for it here is unneccesary duplication. What will you do if the two votes don't agree because people aren't voting for both? — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's actually so far up, I hadn't seen it. In hindsight, I'd say that poll is very old and did not reach consensus. In fact, a clear outcome wasn't evident. This one has more options, and has a set time limit. So I'd like to think this supercedes the previous one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There are ten new votes from yesterday alone. The poll is only ten days old. And as for when the poll is over, I guess you haven't seen Talk:Autofellatio#Poll_deadline either, the poll on when the poll should end. This is clearly duplication and unneccesary. You just happened not to see the main poll, but others are still voting. — Asbestos | Talk 23:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright! I didn't see it. Be nice. I made this poll trying to help. You may be made of asbestos, but not all of us are. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

We'll just vote on which of the votes to go by! --gcbirzan^talk 23:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to comment here: I hate this dispute. I hate this talk page. I hate these polls. This is one of the silliest, longest, and most baffling disputes I've seen. There are polls, and polls about polls, and trolls, and gay porn and pictures of cats. Please stop. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

You think discussion is hurting Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion. Rhobite 03:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty lively one, but a discussion all the same. I prefer a discussion to an edit war any day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I personally think that an image as controversial as #1 should not be used unless there is a consensus to use it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on external links

As seems to be the tradition (and it's friendlier than and roughly equivalent to a revert war), let's vote on what external links to include:

[edit] No commercial porn sites

For images, we already link to google images OneGuy 03:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cantus…☎ 02:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Davenbelle 02:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Johntex 02:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Andrew pmk 04:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dover 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reasonable standard. We ought to link to an image, however. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only the one site (solosuck.com)

The listing currently reads:

solosuck.com A commercial website devoted to autofellatio

It seems to have the most free stuff, and is thus the most useful. --SPUI (talk) 21:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo 22:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) It seems kind of silly to have to vote on every edit to the page.

Agreed - it seemed like the only thing to stop the revert war. --SPUI (talk) 22:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a good site for the subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll support this if solosuck and the single image link is voted down. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems fine. — Asbestos | Talk 23:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 01:22 Z
Flyers13 04:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo is right, this is silly. foobaz·✐ 09:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
gcbirzan^talk 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
seems reasonable, but option below also does. Sam Hocevar 23:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

solosuck plus others, or others without solosuck

solosuck [6] as well as the image link [7] - it has a domain that his irked some but is otherwise relevant and spam/spyware/popup free (unlike what one may find from the google list).

Support. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd also go for this. --SPUI (talk) 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about Solosuck, but there really should be some external links to images. LizardWizard 07:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
gcbirzan^talk 19:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Of my two votes, I prefer this one.
The image link is just as, if not more, useful than solosuck. — MikeX (talk) 20:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'd also support this option, of course, if additional relevant websites were to be found. Sam Hocevar 23:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any sites which add useful information (including photographs, videos ands such), regardless of their nature. If you want one replaced, kindly find a replacement providing comparable resources and replace the link instead of removing links to useful information. Jamesday 11:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan 22:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

OneGuy has unilaterally deleted the link to onesuck as "spam". I have reverted it pending the result of these numerous votes. Rick K 21:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The link was not deleted just by me. It was deleted by several other users. You inserted back a link to porn spam site selling products without any discussion on the talk page OneGuy 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, aren't we discussing it on the Talk page? And isn't there a vote going on right now as to what to do with the link? Rick K 22:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

We are discussing it, yes, but I haven't seen you discuss it. When you revert to the previous version at least post some justification as to why you think that version is better. This poll was setup just few minutes before you reverted the page. Tony Sidaway and SPU (basically two people) want to insert a link to this site porn site: solosuck.com. If you go to the site, it's basically a site setup to sell video tapes for 50 dollars. Like all other porn sites, it has some sample pictures and video clips, but basically the site is a commercial porn site selling video tapes. Search the web and you will find thousands of other porn sites on this topic selling something. Why should we randomly choose one commercial porn site and give them free advertisement on Wikipedia? Since you reverted the page to the version with spam link, I would like to see your justification OneGuy 22:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you find one with better stills and video clips, or better yet, one with stills and video clips and other useful content, we can discuss whether to list than one. Meanwhile I think solosuck is very good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's your opinion that this spam site selling video tapes is good. I think it's a pathetic site. Who cares what I or you think? Every spammer thinks his site is excellent. You are linking to a site that is basically setup to sell video tapes. We have many sex related articles. Every spammer wants his site included in these articles because he thinks his site is excellent. Sorry, but they won't, regardless of how good they think their commercial porn is. The link must be either to academic site, a web directory, or to google OneGuy 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only reason why we have to link to the commercial site is because of the people who won't allow a photo of the act to appear on the page. If the photo were kept, we wouldn't need the link. You can't delete both, that is absolutely unacceptable. Rick K 23:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

We already have a solution to this. Please see the above discussion. We link to google for images, instead of giving free advertisement to one commercial site chosen by someone who might be getting paid by the spam site OneGuy 23:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. Jimbo wanted the picture linked, not deleted outright. Then Rama drew an image, and I believe at some point the drawing was mistakenly saved on top of the original photo, Autofellatio.jpg. The drawing is also at Autofellatio_drawing.jpg, and the article uses that file. I've tried to revert back to the original photo at Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but Cantus is emboldened by Jimbo's edicts and will have none of it. Since we're voting on whether or not to link the image, NOT delete it, I think the image should be reverted and linked in the article, perhaps under the autofellatio drawing. I'd be happy including that and dropping the gaybigdick link. Who's with me? TIMBO (T A L K) 23:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The clear problems with a Google search link have been enumerated by me and others. It is not acceptable. It is too risky. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. Linking to google is no more risky than turning on the computer and logging on the internet to do anything OneGuy 23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sending the user off to random sites of unknown quality is much more dangerous and more hit-and-miss than sending him to a known site of high quality material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a quality material according to whom? I see the site as a poor commercial site that is selling video tapes. Why should we give that site free advertisement? Every spammer wants his site included, and every spammer thinks his site is "quality." By linking to google images, we avoid that problem. The sites are not chosen by us. We are not giving free advertisement to one commercial site. The argument that linking to google is risky is completely bogus. It's no more risky than logging on the internet. OneGuy 00:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is quite rediculous. The "spammer" you keep mentioning above is, of course, Tony Sidaway, who added the link in this edit. Let's not pretend that the link-inclusionists are evil porn-pushers who are trying to make money off of wikipedia. Like I said before, there is no Wikipedia moratorium on linking to sites that make money. Until there is, please stop using that line of argument. Furthermore, as you say you weren't the only person getting rid of the link, but you appear to be the only person here arguing for its removal. I don't think wikipedia should be held hostage to the whims of one editor against all others. There is a vote here in progress and there are currently seven votes to none on having the link. Your arguments hold no water, as has been repeatedly shown above. You have also repeatedly insinuated that those of us who want to keep the link are somehow associated with "spammers" who are, in turn, associated with porn-pushers. These constant insinuations are getting a little beyond a boring agenda-pushing editor. Until it looks like more people are siding with you, please stop your personal crusade. — Asbestos | Talk 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you or anyone else is offended by being called a spamer, then please don't link to a porn site that is selling porn video tapes. It's not true that I am the only person who is removing the spam or posting comments on this talk page. Cantus, Davenbelle, and jguk have posted comments in favor too. They don't have to argue as thoroughly because I have already debunked all the justifications used to link this site. What more is left to say? You have not responded to any of my arguments, so let me repeat. There are thousands of porn web sites on the internet. Every spamer wants his link added everywhere he can. Every spamer claims that his site is excellent, high quality with "free stuff." Should we allow the spammers to abuse Wikipedia by using it as an advertisement tool for porn sites? What valid justification will you have to remove porn spam added to this or other sex related articles when you link to even one commercial porn site? Why should we link to this commercial porn site and leave out thousand others? Why give this site special treatment and help it make money via Wikipedia? I am sorry to tell you but that can't be allowed. We should not link to any porn site that is selling products or making money in anyway. The links must be either academic sites, web directory, or google OneGuy 02:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "it's the best one we could find" don't you understand? --SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "every spamer thinks his site is best" don't you understand? OneGuy 02:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not a fucking spammer" don't you understand? --SPUI (talk) 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Every spamer says that :)) Even if you are not, the next person who adds the link to some sex related page would be. I see no reason why we should make an exception by linking this commercial porn site OneGuy 02:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, you're just going to have to accept that quality is something that one judges. In my personal judgement, having many stills of high technical quality showing the subject matter, and even some movie clips, and not have much in the way of obstrusive ads, equates to quality in this circumstance. Your mileage may vary.
If you believe that exposing users to a range of unvetted links, some of which will certainly carry spyware, viruses and dialer software is "no more risky than logging on to the internet" (what ever "logging on to the internet" might mean) you're simply and categorically wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the quality of that site is of a cheap porn site that is making money by selling video tapes. We should not allow that cheap low quality porn site to make money by using Wikipedia. And yes, you can get hacked, ping bombed, and nuked just by logging on the internet. Your argument about risk involved with using google are completely bogus. It's also possible that the site that you link is a scam, and once you send your money, you don't get the tapes. Everything is possible if you want to use those kind of absurd arguments. It's also interesting to note that Tony himself proposed google solution as a compromise, but once he saw his favorite commercial porn site removed, he went back to edit war OneGuy 02:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that my concerns about unvetted websites is bogus is hardly worthy of response. I also note that you falsely accuse me of edit warring. Look at the history list; I do not edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the claim that we should not link to google because of security is completely bogus, as I explained already above. Interesting, you say you do not do edit war, but this edit was started by you when you asked SPUI on his talk page to add the site again, going back on your google's comprise. You also responded positively to his request of "tag team action" because he already used his 3 reverts OneGuy 07:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to get familiarized with a few general knowledge encyclopedias so you get a grasp of the concept. —Cantus…☎ 02:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Tony Sidaway, can you explain this discrepancy. Yesterday you told me you didn't choose the site: I didn't choose those sites, but the one with the free pictures and clips is excellent, but according to Asbestos, you are the person who selected the site: A website devoted to autofellation OneGuy 06:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I did choose it but I promptly forgot about it and got on with my life. Scary, huh? ;) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hard to believe that you forgot something like that, but I will give you the benefit of doubt :) It does make sense though why you would so vehemently insist on linking this site, even going back on your google compromise. I also noticed that you specifically asked SPUI on his talk page to add the site today, starting this revert war again OneGuy 07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually he said that AFTER I added it. [8] is from 12:52 and [9] is from 13:12. How long will it take for you to realize that we are NOT SPAMMERS and have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE? On the other hand, Jimbo is a pornographer. It's true; I read it online. --SPUI (talk) 07:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo is not spamming this article by adding links to commercial porn sites. You are. If he does it, I will give up and accept that spamming Wikipedia with commercial porn sites is an official policy OneGuy 07:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Bomis had that sort of image, we could end the whole dispute by linking there. Wikipedia's bandwidth is paid for by profits from Bomis, so any income Jimbo would make from such a link would probably find its way back to Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Spamming Wikipedia with commercial porn sites" is not an official policy; linking to useful sites, whatever their status, is. Give up and accept that. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's your assertion that it's a policy to allow porn spamers to spam sex articles on Wikipedia. We have always deleted spam that people add to Wikipedia, and linking to a porn site that is selling video tapes is spam OneGuy 08:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please. Sit down for a couple hours or a couple years and think about what you're saying. Think about how it makes no sense. Think about how your head is so far up your ass that you could perform autofellatio if you had a hole in your chest. --SPUI (talk) 08:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, personal insults never bother me, but whatever you write might bother you as examples of abuse. What you wrote above went into archive. Having said that, I will just repeat: linking to a porn site that is selling video tapes is spam. It doesn't become "not spam" just because you say you like the commercial porn site. We have always deleted spam that people add to Wikipedia. Why should we make an exception for you? OneGuy 08:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hah, and your calling Tony and me (and presumably the others that voted for the link) a spammer isn't abuse? Abuse your kids and they grow up to pull the plug from your breathing apparatus. Or not. Anyway, they're not intended at personal attacks, but attacks on the tactics and arguments you use. --SPUI (talk) 08:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are linking to a porn site that is selling videos for 50 dollars. If you don't want to be called spamers, quit spamming. It's pretty simple. Your emotional outburst above were only personal attacks, but you can continue posting these responses. I don't mind. They go in archive as examples of abuse by you, not me :)) OneGuy 08:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Listen. I am not spamming. I am providing a useful external link. Go suck yourself off, and shut the fuck up. I only wish this was anywhere near as satisfying as going up to you and beating the shit out of you. But it's not, which is why I'm doing it so much. It's actually not satisfying at all; I do it in the hope that the big bold text will get through to you somehow. --SPUI (talk) 09:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is really fun, I must admit :)) You are linking to a site that is selling porn video tapes. That is spamming. Why are you spamming Wikipedia? Please stop spamming. Find an academic site, a web directory, or non commercial site, instead of spamming Wikipedia OneGuy 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, you can use the word "spamming" a dozen times in your next few posts as well if you think it will get SPUI to blow his top again, scoring you some minor points. But the fact remains that you are in a minority of people who think that the site should not be there, and certainly the only person trying to label the rest of us "spammers." Keep using the word. Maybe you'll convince someone else. — Asbestos | Talk 09:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not in the "minority." You just have one more vote. Please see above. If you want this dispute over, why can't you find some academic or non-commercial site? You only have one more vote till now OneGuy 09:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It does, however, become "not spam" because he does not stand to benefit financially in any way from the addition of the link. --Carnildo 08:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't know that, but even if he is not getting paid, once you allow linking to commercial porn sites, you open the door for the next person who would want his commercial site linked too, and he would be getting paid for it. Why should we make exception for this site, but reject the rest of spamers? There should be no exceptions. OneGuy 08:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if that site is relevant and useful, then maybe it should be kept. Let's dissect this. "Commercial porn sites". Porn is POV, so we're left with "commercial sites". We link to many of those. Some of them were probably added by the webmasters, and kept because they're useful links. --SPUI (talk) 08:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are thousands of "relevant" commercials porn sites. We should not link to one site chosen by someone to help that site make money using Wikipedia. Is it POV to call a porn site porn site? That has to be the most absurd statement posted this week on Wikipedia :) No, we don't always link to a commercial site that is selling stuff. We remove it when we see someone posted spam on Wikipedia. We should not make an exception for you. See Islam article on how all the links are to either academic sites or web directory OneGuy 09:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia links to a whole lot of commercial web sites. Not all of them are unique—for example, Daytona Beach, Florida links to Mapquest, making them money, when we could as easily link to Yahoo maps. So what makes this link different? Only that they sell pornography? foobaz·✐ 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though there may be thousands of commercial "porn" sites, the rub is this: we want to pick the best one. If it has some free, spy/mal/adware free, relevant content, then there is a very good case of including it in the external links. Rather than sending the reader off to wade through the muck of crappy, malicious sites, we can provide a verified, good one. If another site comes along by a "spammer" and is better than the one we've got, why not replace it? I see no ethical inconsistency to say that we put in one link but not every link. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, porn sites should be exception. I have never received a spam email from mapquest.com, but I do receive spam from porn spammers on how to make my penis larger. Given that kind of abuse by porn spammers, and given that porn spammers do abuse internet everywhere, we should not be giving free links to commercial porn sites when some spammer claims he really likes some commercial porn site he thinks we should link. OneGuy 09:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, if you have evidence that the owner of the site we're linking to is a spammer, please let us know about it. I honestly don't want to post links to sites owned by spammers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I give up. Therefore, to save face, I will randomly announce that you have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day. It's obviously true; don't try to deny it. --SPUI (talk) 09:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is I who have been trolled; good job, OneGuy. I have lost; I will thus have a nice day. --SPUI (talk) 23:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wow, another poll! can you nest polls? — Davenbelle 02:12, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

--SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: There are three options so far in the poll: No commercial porn sites, Only the one site (solosuck.com) and Other. Timbo and SPUI have taken the liberty to cast a vote in the latter two options. I believe it is illegal to vote twice in a poll. Timbo and SPUI should make up their minds and vote for one option only, otherwise we will have to either, remove all four votes from them and let them vote again, or nullify one of the options in the poll. —Cantus…☎ 15:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessarily illegal to vote twice in a poll, though it's sometimes wise to make it plain whether, for the purposes of a particular poll, multiple selections will be considered. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. At least one voter has made the very sensible reason for his multiple selection known; he wants two external links but would settle for one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's go IRV, that's how I mean my two votes. --gcbirzan^talk 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that we're going to keep adding polls until, in the end, we find out that the first poll was in fact about the last we'd added... and the circle would be completed. :) Rama 08:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are some people who think this has already happened. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutofellatio_Image_polls_and_discussions_ce87.html"

Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?

[edit] Keep image inline

[edit] Use a link

[edit] Other/Comments

[edit] Poll design

[edit] Suggestion

[edit] Ouroboros

[edit] On censorship

[edit] Javascript?

[edit] Poll deadline

[edit] No deadline, whichever option reaches 70% first

[edit] Yes, the poll should have a deadline

[edit] Comments

[edit] Poll on how to interpret the outcome of the link/inline poll

[edit] I agree

[edit] I do not agree

[edit] Comments

[edit] Linking now?

[edit] Recent edits to article

[edit] Protection End of discussion

[edit] ok, why is the image still inline at this moment?

[edit] Thus spoke Jimbo

[edit] Jimbo has spoken

[edit] Raul's convo

[edit] Image poll

[edit] We should use only image 1 in the article.

[edit] We should use only image 2 in the article.

[edit] We should use only image 3 in the article.

[edit] We should use more than one of the above images in the article.

[edit] We should not use any of the above three images in the article.

[edit] Comments

[edit] Vote on external links

[edit] No commercial porn sites

[edit] Only the one site (solosuck.com)

[edit] Other

[edit] Comment

[edit] Yes

Views

Navigation

Search