Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Standard of Decency

Good page. I think the goal should be "appropriate" standard of decency rather than "high" standard. The high standard might imply it is for children or imply that certain favored adult orientied articles should be deleted. I think we should make things appropriate to Wiki and maybe even some process whereby pictures have either a warning or link or simething. --Noitall 05:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm changing the templates to reflect that. Agriculture 05:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why was Bible tagged with the WfD banner here? --Peter Kirby 07:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    The subject of Decency in the Wikipedia is presumably one in which editors of the article The Bible might take interest, as part of the recommendation for announcing a new Wikiproject, we announced it on a number of talk pages where interested users might be located. Does this explain it? Agriculture 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought you were marking the Bible for indecency. ^_^ --Peter Kirby 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
An amusing thought I suppose, but no. Nothing in the article appears indecent. If you have an interest in our project, I encourage you to join. Agriculture 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And why not. How decent is an organisation, which bases all its principles on a 2000 year-old book that has been shown many times to be inaccurate on many issues, and then promoting (sometimes very strongly) that people follow their ideals, and give them money, under penalty of going to hell for eternity? If this project was accepted I would certainly promote religion as indecent. Elfguy 17:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Funny, insightful, but totally besides the point. I have severe doubts that the Bible is considered indecent in Jeb Bush's Florida, of all places. - Haunti 17:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What standard of decency are you aiming for, other than 'appropriate'? Wikipedia impinges across many cultures, and there is Islamic opinion that any depiction of a creature with a soul is forbidden - which would disallow the use of any picture of a human being, for example. (See http://muttaqun.com/pictures.html) As Wikipedia is hosted, in the main, from Florida, are you aiming for what is generally socially acceptable to Floridans?

Well I think that the legal requirements of Florida are a given baseline, beyond that we should focus on building the standard from case law on Wikipedia, statements by adminisitrators, the definition of encyclopedic, and general consensus. Agriculture 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I searched Wikipedia for “Standards of Decency” and came up empty. When I searched for “decency,” I was redirected to “indecency.” It appears a parallel article on this subject is needed as well. RDF 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I suggest that the general consensus is that developing any standard of "decency" will be inherently imposing a POV upon the encyclopedia, and that the only criteria should be whether or not a subject or photo holds encyclopedic educational value. "Decency" is in the eye of the beholder. FCYTravis 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The consensus also says we must follow Florida Law, which means it must help define the standard of decency. Agriculture 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Following a law does not establish a 'standard of decency' - it simply prevents legal liability. If Florida were to pass a law which stated that the teaching of evolution were forbidden, would that become part of the "standard of decency?" Encyclopedic and educational depictions of human anatomy and sex acts are not pornography and not forbidden by any law. Otherwise, it would be illegal to purchase college sexuality textbooks without showing ID. FCYTravis 06:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen a textbook used in colleges or high schools that show pictures of a man sucking his own penis. In fact, I don't think any of them even discussed autofellatio. Besides, the teaching of evolution doesn't violate obsenity laws, and it's doubtful that Wikipedia would be viewed badly in a court in Florida, any other state or internationally for having articles discussing evolution if such unlikely event of an anti-evolution teaching law were to be enacted in Florida.--MONGO 07:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Correct, it wouldn't violate obscenity laws. Neither does anything on Wikipedia, as clearly the images in question are displayed in a scientific and educational context and are not intended to appeal solely to prurient interests. That, prima facie, disqualifies them from being "obscene" in a legal sense. If you don't think autofellatio is discussed in sexuality courses, you must have taken them at Bob Jones University. FCYTravis 07:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss this matter, you will do so without a personal attack. As an alumni of the University of Maryland, that can hardly be construed as a conservative college. Furthermore, with a background in anthropology, I am well aware of what is taught in human sexuality classes...and what is taught as cultural differences in sexuality norms. So, since some cultures think that mating with their lifestock is acceptable as a part of their culture, then we should have pictures of this? We are trying to establish some level of acceptablity...that this project was commenced means that there are issues that some of us find unacceptable.--MONGO 07:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Some cultures believe that all depictions of sex should be forbidden and that no picture of women without a veil over their head should be printed. Some cultures also believe that gays and lesbians are disgusting Satan-spawn. Shall we change our articles to conform to their POV as well? Establishing any level of "acceptability" based on any criteria other than whether a topic or photo is encyclopedic or not opens the door to the destruction of this project as an open and free source of the unbiased and uncensored sum total of human knowledge. Thankfully, the vast majority of Wikipedians know this, and that is why your misguided goals are being opposed so vehemently. I suggest that if you want to create a "my-POV-safepedia," you take a text dump and create your own fork of the project, on which you may set any standards that you so choose. FCYTravis 07:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have requested that you refrain from personal attacks. I consider this your second warning. Your knee jerk reaction to this is based on some concept that we wish to eliminate when all we would like to see are a level of standards. All freedoms come at a cost. Should we also use the word "fuck" in every other word in every article? Of course not. I am sure you would think that not using that word repeatedly throughout an article is a standard. You attack for no reason.--MONGO 07:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
There is no personal attack in my reply. Please point out to me the alleged attack. As for fuck, Using the word "fuck" in every other word of an article would clearly not be very encyclopedic, would it? Please explain to me in which article using "fuck" every other word would contribute to the encyclopedic clarity and informative properties of the article. On the other hand, a photo of someone performing autofellatio is perfectly encyclopedic in the context of an encyclopedia article on that act. FCYTravis 07:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Accusing me of taking classes at Bob Jones University in the manner you did is a personal attack. Calling my goals misguided is a personal attack. suggesting I create a "my-POV-safepedia" is also a personal attack...surely you know this. NO personal attacks, okay. Ah hum, point made...there is NO article that the word "fuck" used repeatedly would be encyclopedic or decent. Therefore, we agree on a standard, yes. That is all this standard discussion is about...hoping to find where the threshold is of what is and what isn't encyclopedic and one of those ways is to understand what will make Wikipedia great. It will never be great without some level of standards...I think the standards are in route.--MONGO 09:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The word "fuck" used repeatedly is both encyclopedic and decent in the article fuck. Therefore your statement that there is NO such article, is completely wrong. There is at least one. Two such sentences are the following, which are used encyclopedically and decently, in an rticle:
What are you doing fucking in my bed?
What are you fucking doing in my bed?
~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
1. Not familiar with that article since you don't link it...2. that is the point of this project, that some disagree with your perception of what is and what isn't encyclopedic and what is and what isn't decent. The censorship of this project doesn't make the questions disappear...they will come up again and in all liklihood, some standards will end up being adopted at some point that may displease some people due to their appearance of censorship.--MONGO 12:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
1. It is linked. Perhaps you didn't notice - I'll duplicate it a few times so you can click on it easily:
Fuck Fuck Fuck
Fuck Fuck Fuck
Fuck Fuck Fuck
~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

ALinkToThePast

While yes, this user said for the users to add his name to the list of members of the project, I am going to ask Link to add his own name in. I told the IRC people to stop adding his name in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Witch hunting

Please explain why Talk:Wicca needs a decency tag. [1] ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That's ironic because it's literal witch hunting--205.188.116.14 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It was added by a "godfearing parent", not Agriculture, leading me to think that some kid has been looking up paganism on Wikipedia, and their clueless fundamentalist parents fear for their child's soul and are trying to get such dangerous material censored. Except that someone who knows how to transclude a template (instead of just blanking the article) probably has some experience on WP already... ~~ N (t/c) 22:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD UNITE!!!

  • I BELIEVE THIS ONE ARTICLE HAS BECOME A NEXUS OF INAPROPRIATE PORNO GRAPHIC MATERIAL!! I SUGGEST ALL REAL MEMBERS OF WfD ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT OF THE VfD!!!!!! WE MUST SMITE OURSELVES FOR OUR SHAmEFUL NEXUSING OF PONOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF CLOATHED WOMEN!!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!!--205.188.116.14 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
So....your plan to "unite" includes vandalizing my user talk page by declaing me immoral and that I am pure evil: [2]. I would ask your members, Agriculture, to not attack me because I put the project up for deletion. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hip hop?

Who in the hell (yes, I said it) tagged hip hop with a "Wikipedians for Decency" tag? There's nothing obscene or offensive about the article, and as such, I am removing it. --FuriousFreddy 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: IF YOU CAME HERE BY FOLLOWING A MESSAGE POSTED BY "GODFEARING PARENT", IT IS PROBABLY A TROLL

An anonymous user has been posting the following message to numerous talk pages where such a posting would create strong reactions, in a blatant attempt to unfairly influence votes in the VfD on this page:

"Something which may interest editors of this page
{{DecencyWikiProject}}
Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent."

There is no indication that user is in any way associated with the original author, members or supporters of this WikiProject. Thank you for your time. You may proceed to voting below. ObsidianOrder 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The original postings were a rational (perhaps ill advised) attempt to collect favorable votes. The trolling campaign (and it can hardly be anything else) is a similarly rational, but rather more underhanded, attempt to collect unfavorable votes.
Re: off their rockers - try User:DavidsCrusader. I think he's also a troll, but hey, he could be for real. Anyway, you're wrong to be adressing me as part of this project since I had absolutely nothing to do with any of the swirling vortex of insanity that this issue has become until today... and with any luck I won't have anything to do with it after today either. ObsidianOrder 02:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"feel free to join us"

How about feeling free to oppose you? The question of "decency" is so completely subjective that I find the idea of applying a standard for it incompatible with Wikipedia's most fundamental policy of maintaing a Neutral Point Of View. This is as pointless as formulating a standard for political correctness, and almost as dangerous. Tverbeek 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • WikiProjects like this make me wonder how far away a WikiProject that is made to make other WikiProjects stay neutral is... Werty8472

Statement by a yahoo

I am very worried about our member Noitall's commitment to the project! He voted keep on the VfD's for Chelsea Charms, SaRenna Lee and Pandora Peaks and seemed to have prior knowledge of them. Furthermore he voted delete on Casey James but expressed previous knowledge about pornography and porn star Jesse Jane. I am seriously worried about why a fellow member of WfD is voting KEEP on articles under investigation by our group and where there is obviously a conflict due to the obscenities and possible legal battles Wiki might face because of this. -DavidsCrusader 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

DavidsCrusader: Your trolling was amusing for about five minutes. (actually it may have been less than that) Now go away. ObsidianOrder 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
To the extent that I answer this yahoo, it is to say that the issue is one of encyclopedic merit. One of the pages mentioned was not notable, the others were, thus they had encyclopedic merit. Nothing on any of the pages was obscene or created specifically to get on Wiki. I am not a prude and neither is Wiki. Even though I greatly advocate for standards, we have not attempted to come up with those standards. And just because we have standards does not mean that deletion of an article should happen. Perhaps it is modification or elimination of an uncyclopedic picture, possibly created to get on Wiki, such as the autofalatio picture, which caused this in the first place. --Noitall 13:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship is indecent

This project can be saved. Nothing in the project requires that it be about prudishness. As such, my attempt to redirect the project to a roving force of anti-censorship decency crusader is not "pollution," and assuming such is Not Good Faith. Please restore my contribution to the target pages. Hipocrite 16:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the following is what I removed from the project page:

18 August 2005

It seems ironic that you would accuse me of not assuming good faith when you accuse the project's members of having designs to push censorship on Wikipedia, a goal they deny aiming for. Your accusation is especially ironic considering I've been one of the people encouraging that we assume good faith regarding this project. I'd appreciate if you would not use the project page to try and sink the project. Enough of that is happening on the Talk page and on the VfD page. - Haunti 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Musta missed where they denied wanting to "use ... governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression." Was it when they linked to Morality in Media, on Florida's obcentity law? I'm not assuming bad faith. Secondly, I'm not trying to use the project page to sink the project, I'm trying to use the project page to make the project something that will help, not hurt. Hipocrite 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The link in question is directly to the PDF text of Florida's Decency law--whether or not it is hosted on the Morality in Media server is irrelevant. The text is the same regardless of where the file is located. To assume that the link is somehow proof of POV is in bad faith, without evidence to support such a claim. Secondly, claiming that the project is an attempt to censor Wikipedia and then providing a link to the VfD page and telling people to "vote their conscience" sounds like a sinking attempt to me. If you want to change the project for the better discuss the issue on the talk page, then make the relevant changes to the project page once a concensus has been reached. Your edit was not constructive, and was thus removed. - Haunti 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The location they found the law is certainly relevent - why use that site instead of the official http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/titl0847.htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=%2D%3E2004%2D%3EChapter%20847. ? Also, you alleged that they denied wanting to "use ... governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression," but I show that they (the original project founder, now not in the project0 actually wanted to use the laws of florida to control speech and other forms of human expression. Finally, as a member of the project, please do not exclude my viewpoints. If you have an opinion on how our project should work, you should feel free to sign up.
On the seperate issue of making the project better, you raise an important point regarding discussions on talk pages before making unilateral changes to project focus, a point I hope that you raise with MONGO. I intend to take your advice to heart.
I propose that we focus on indecent censorship, rather than indecent nakedness, and that we redefine the project for that focus. All project members in favor? Because this project has been assaulted with sockpuppets, we'll need to determine eligibility for policy decisions in the project. Allow me to propose 100 edits and 3 months? Editors with less than 100 edits and 3 months should feel free to object before the poll closes.Hipocrite 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it is indecent to censor an image of a natural human body of God's own creation. We must fight indecent censorship all the way!--Wiglaf 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh gee whiz. WARNING: WIKI-KNEE-JERK ABOVE. Jimbo said we can't have images of sexual acts because law would require us to keep records on the performers and he is not willing to do so. So there is a standard. Agriculture 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you saying "we" when refering to a project to which you are not affiliated? Hipocrite 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Adding your name to the user list does not mean you are all of a sudden a member of the project with more right to contribute than me. Having your name on that list does not give you the right to hijack the project in accordance with your own whims. - Haunti (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Bug off you stupid troll. Agriculture 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.--Wiglaf 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, warn me and not the troll. I forgot they run the joint. Thats it, I'm out of here. You can have your damn Vandalpedia. Agriculture 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hipocrite has been raising valid points about the definition of decency in Wikipedia. Whereas you make ad hominem attacks, again.--Wiglaf 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
He vandalized the page in violation of WP:POINT, then came here, made a few admitedly good points, then trolled a bit as well. Am I making some ad hominem attacks? Sure I am, because I'm sick and tired of the trolls running the show while admins let them and over the past few days they've pushed me so far over the edge that I don't care anymore. Wikipedia will never be an encyclopedia for that very reason. Agriculture 18:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Agriculture, I think you are just wikistressed. Relax!--Wiglaf 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I just finally understand what Wikipedia is really about. Agriculture 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about presenting information and about discussing guidelines for them, like we do here, in a polite way.--Wiglaf 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
While my initial edit to the project was done without due consideration to reaching consensus on changing the focus of the project in talk, said change was reverted in minutes. I'm sorry I tried to take unilateral action on the project (Which you are not a member of, BTW) without going to the other project members. I've since corrected that, and look forward to a dialogue about what is really "decent," and what parts of "decency" this project should focus on. Feel free to join the project and contribute. Hipocrite 18:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you should try to be more diplomatic and not stress that he has written that he is no longer part of it. I write here and I am not a member. Your behaviour can actually be construed as trollish.--Wiglaf 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Like I said on Ag's talk page, I think everyone needs to deescalte to like three replies ago or something. As such, allow me to apologize. Hipocrite 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Finally, thank you. Can you please ban 205.188.116.5 next? Agriculture 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If you report to me what has happened, when it happens, I may do it.--Wiglaf 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion improperly placed on project page

- Jimbo removes an image commenting:

This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline

  • Why is it unacceptable? We need to get a statement from Jimbo.
    • Allegedly: Under Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 011, it is a third degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos are a felony, and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down.
This is not correct. The material must be more than just "photographs of sexual acts", it must be "obscene". The definition of obscenity used considers the purpose of the image - if it's there for sexual gratification it's obscene, if it's to educate, explain or inform it's not. Images in the first category are removed from wikipedia anyway as superfluous; if not, they clearly have a useful role in an encyclopedia and hence fall into the latter division. PeteVerdon 16:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Florida law only makes exceptions for artistic, literary, political and scientific purposes, not necessarily just because a picture is intended to "educate, explain or inform" (unless I missed that part). - Haunti 16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Such exceptions must be read into the law under the U.S. Supreme Court's Miller decision. If they are not, the law is unconstitutional. DES (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Whoops. Excuse my ignorance, I'm Canadian. - Haunti 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Obscenity Regulation Under U.S. Federal Law
    • Pursuant to recent changes to 28 C.F.R. 75 governing enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 2257, the Wikipedia Foundation would, as a secondary producer of 'visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct' (engaging in interstate commerce) be required to keep documentation proving that the 'performer' was above 18 years of age at the time of the 'performance', including photocopies of identification card, and make them available to Federal law enforcement on request. There would also need to be a boilerplate 2257 notice telling where these records are kept on any page where the image was displayed, although that could be done with a template. I think that the documentation and ID storage and presentment requirement is a problem for Wikipedia, unless the Foundation thinks it's worth it.
I'm reposting here some edited information I placed on the latest IFD for Autofellatio.jpg. I'm no lawyer, but I think this needs to be addressed. I'm also not a prude, I just think this may place the Wikipedia Project in peril if not addressed. Someone correct me if I am wrong. -Kwh 23:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
A secondary producer is defined as any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.
While Wikipedia does publish (electronically), I don't think it qualifies as a commercial distrbiution (IANAL). Also, according to the article, there are some possible exceptions. That might be worth checking out. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 00:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Responses to those who want no standard or oppose deletion of obscenity

  • Statement: If Wiki cannot conform to all worldwide communities (and it can't), then it should not conform to any of them
  • Responses:
  • You would never apply that to a person's behaviour. It would be an implicit endoresemnt of anarchy. Wikipedia is it's own community and is allowed to set its own rules. It already does so in many areas of behaviour. Why not in decency also? DJ Clayworth 17:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Statement: There is no concern that Wikipedia could become a porn site; there are no plans to turn Wikipedia into anything other than an encyclopedia
  • Responses:
  • Statement: You believe that these images should not be shown on Wikipedia because you think they're 'obscene'. That implies a moral judgement, and is therefore directly in opposition to WP:NPOV, the founding principle of Wikipedia
  • Responses:
  • To state that there should be no moral judgements is itself a POV. Is it also POV to say No personal attacks? Or no vanity pages? DJ Clayworth 17:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This Page is not silly enough

This page is not silly enough. How can I be expected to read pages that are not silly? I demand the right to tag this page as insufficiently silly.--Gorgonzilla 22:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

>"since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located..."

Florida's obscenity law specifically exempts works which, taken as a whole, contain "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". This clearly exempts Wikipedia since Wikipedia has literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Thus the Florida law is not specifically relevant for Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has said the same thing on the listserv. Kaldari 23:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How much would it cost to move the servers to California if it were? --Gorgonzilla 02:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Can I just note to all concerned, but there is a great big world out there that isn't just the 50 states ... and amazingly it does have the internet. WP already has sub-servers in other countries and whilst there may be an expectation that the main servers will remain in the USA (FLA) for the time being there is nothing that carves that in stone. --Vamp:Willow 09:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit_Archive_1_ba89.html"