Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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

What is decency

Its a very loaded word. Who gets to define it? Christians? Homophobes? horseboy 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the courts do and have. Can we agree on the US Supreme court statement about it - "I know it when I see it" and take each controversial image, etc. on a case by case basis. I think drawings in many cases are much better than photographs for an encylopedia when it comes to this issue. -Visorstuff 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that Redrup from which that phrase wqas quoted, was overruled later, and the Miller test is now the key legal standard, and is tracked in the Florida law. Note also that the legal definitions are of "obscene" works. "Indecent", and a legal category, is no longer used. "Obscene" works (in the U.S.) are works which are not afforded first admendment protection, and which a govt is free to simply ban if it so chooses. DES (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Note also the description of the judgements under that standard, while it was in effect, (in The Bretheren by Woodward among other places). The 9 Justices could not generally agree on what was and was not "obscene" under that standard -- each had a personal standard, a PoV, and no two standards quite agreed. DES (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Florida Law

I just read through the Florida decency law linked to on this page ([1]). Here are the two relevant definitions:

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:
(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
[...]
(10) "Obscene" means the status of material which:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The argument then becomes whether or not a certain article or piece of media "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." I think it's interesting that "academic" and "informational" are left out here, but I think we can make a good argument that most of what you'll see on Wikipedia--including pictures of a man autofellating--have legitimate scientific value. If attempting to document the whole of human knowledge isn't a scientific pursuit, I don't know what is. - Haunti 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Another question is whether or not the image, etc. is needed to explain or demonstrate the concept in question. Is is absolutely neccessary to show some of these items to explain what it is? How did people know about it prior to images being taken of it? -Visorstuff 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
A valid question for Wikipedia overall. However, if that criterion is only going to be applied to so-called "offensive" images, I would be tempted to say that it is POV. - Haunti 17:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you will find that, from a legal PoV, an image does not need to be needed to be protected. An image may have "value" if it helps make the meaning or content of the work clearer or more vivid, whether it is needed or not. Note also that the other key words are Taken as a whole. The case law on this is clear -- this means the whole work, not a single image or passage of text. In the Miller case, this meant that the entire book had to be judged as "without value" to be held as obscene. I strongly suspect (although I am not a lawyer, and there has never been a case quite like this as far as I know) that this would mean a judge would need to find that all of wikipedia lacked value before it could be held either obscene or "harmful to minors". At worst, it would mean an entire article including its images. DES (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi. I'm a professional. We have nothing to fear from Florida law. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 21:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Page is america-centric

I'm not entirely sure I'd like to see european content censored because it does not meet american standards of decency, or american content censored because it does not meet arabic standards of decency, or in fact arabic content censored because it does not meet european standards of decency, I think we're going to end up with a rather diminished encyclopedia here ;-) (and let's not even *start* about asian content :-P ) Kim Bruning 14:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but since half the "members" are probably here simply for disruption, even if it passes Vfd it will be end up being a festering rubbish heap of slanders and personal insults. Just look at the exchanges in the voting section. It's doubtful it would ever be anything more than a place to discuss "decency".? I'm going to exit the tag for images and articles...it is to provocative.--MONGO 15:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, even if the result of the VfD is to keep, it's already been killed. I just can't believe the number of bad faith comments on the VfD page, people refering to us as "Nazi baby raping Satanists", these sort of people won't be happy with a fair vote, even if it can be had. They'll disrupt any attempts at discussion here. There is no way to win, it is their Wikipedia and we are not welcome here. Agriculture 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It's the people opposed to the WikiProject who were called "Nazi baby raping satanists". This can be noted by actually reading the comment instead of scanning for insulting words. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
You have got to understand the vast majority of folks that utilize insults and personal attacks like that are just adolescent people. Ignore it. So far, there isn't a 2/3 majority to delete. Let's work on whether placing tags on "indecent" images and articles is acceptible...I'm inclined to think that it isn't going to make many friends. Perhaps the "mission statement" and objectives need to be made more realistic and a bit less confrontational.--MONGO 15:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but have you noticed that when it comes to people expressing this kind of free speech, the admins don't give a damn when people level personal attacks? Because we are saying what we are saying, the admins have decided it's fair game to act like jerks towards us. This will continue. Wikipedia isn't about fairness, free speech, respect, or anything else. It's about these people running the show and treating the rest of us however they want, and the admins approve. Agriculture 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason your project has been greeted with that kind of a reception is simply that it runs directly contrary to the founding principle of Wikipeda, WP:NPOV: any personal standard of 'decency' or 'obsenity' is by its very nature not neutral. I certainly agree that your treatment at the hands of certain contributors has been unacceptable, although I would note that you were called a 'freaking prude' rather than a 'Nazi baby raping Satanist' -- I think you rather misinterpreted that user's comment. The reason that 'it is their Wikipedia and we are not welcome here' is because, as another editor put it, the aims of your project are simply not consistent with the stated aims of Wikipedia. --Ngb 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the display of "some" images et al severely violates the neutral point of view. That point of view revolves around standards. Examples: would it be encyclopedic and NPOV to show a photograph of a woman being raped? NPOV is based on standards...it does not mean anything goes. Let's say also, you create an article and I come along and put an obscene word in your article every other sentence because in my NPOV, it makes the article read better...would you think that this isn't vandalism. What if I agrued that it is NPOV to have it there because the article is enhanced by such wording. You see, that would probably violate your standard, which means you must have a baseline of what is and what isn't acceptable...how does what the project propose violate NPOV...I don't get it.--MONGO 15:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much value we're going to get out of arguing this out much longer, because I don't think it's likely either one of us will persuade the other, but, ok, I think you're a bit confused: in particular, there is no such thing as 'my NPOV', that's a contradiction in terms. The reason I believe this project as currently constituted violates WP:NPOV is because it is attempting to push one group of editors' position on what constitutes 'decent' or 'obscene' material onto the rest of Wikipedia. You might argue that the opposite position is itself pushing one group of editors' opinions, but I think it's reasonably clear that the only way to maintain a neutral stance on the decency (or otherwise) of content is to remove illustrative or encyclopaedic content only if the law requires it, and not because one or another group considers it 'obscene'. --Ngb 16:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely we can all agree on a base-standard for decency? I mean, surely some images belong and others simply dont, whatever you POV? Can we not agree that, say, an image of a man giving himself oral when the drawing shows this just fine, is not really needed on Wikipedia? I wish people would actually read the aims of the project befor voting or commenting. I dont mean you, by the way, Ngb. Banes 16:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :) (Though I'm about as opposed to this ideologically as I could be, I hope that I'm managing to engage with the project in a non-confrontational way.) I'm actually not sure that we can all agree on a base standard -- we have contributors from all over the world, and they're all going to have different standards of what they find acceptable. That's why I think the 'standard' should be set at what the law requires of us and no more, since I think that's the only way to avoid favouring one group's POV over another's. As I've said before, our standard for inclusion should be based on what's encyclopaedic, not what one demographic might describe as obscene. --Ngb 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear Ngc. Rather than saying "Surely we can all agree on a base-standard for decency.", I would posit the opposite: there will always be arguments over where 'the line' should be drawn, both in the debate over what is decent and over the debate over what is encyclopædic. Decency, I believe, is a sociological norm, and what is decent in one community may be regarded as risqué, indecent, or even obscene in another. Wikipedia is used by members of many communities, and to remain useful to all, currently aims to be as informative as possible - 'holding nothing back' as far as possible/legal. If you don't like it, there is always the possibility of forking the project - take a copy of Wikipedia and set up a version that coincides with your norms - the great thing about the GFDL is that it allows that.WLD 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Truly, the best solution is for everyone who finds something about Wikipedia obscene to go fork themselves. [Disclaimer: The above comment was intended only to add levity to the conversation. It should not be taken seriously]. LizardWizard 21:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced we can "all agree on a base standard". I for one do not agree that the autofellatio image is "not really needed on Wikipedia". In fact I think it is highly desirable (on the proper page), for reasons i exponuded on in the latest vote on deleting that image. I would not agree with any "base-standard for decency" which lead to the conclusion that that image and other such images should be deleted. And I am from the U.S. I think that what is and is not "decent" is so intrisically culturally depandant that a truly NPOV standard for "decendy" is simply not possible. I haven't voted to delete this page, becauase I generally don't approve of using deltion on projects and policy pages (although this could be an exception, because itr is SO opposed to basic policy). But if it is kept and stays active, i expect to watch it and use it as a guide to votes of interst, where I would mostly expect to be votiong keep on content proposed for deletion as "indecent". DES (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Roughly:

  • USA: Some blood ok, no nudity.
  • Europe: No blood! "tasteful" Nudity ok , sex ok, but only either in context or "tasteful" (go and figure out what that means :-P )
  • (East) Asia: Blood and gore ok or not ok, depending on region, partial Nudity ok, but genitals and nipples must be covered
  • Arabic areas: No hair showing for females! Blood ok (?)
  • Africa: ?

Does that help any? Kim Bruning 16:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That international thought process was probably beyond what was considered. When I joined up, I looked at the project more as a club type of deal. It amazes me that folks are thinking that some want to go through the articles and start nominating articles and Images for Vfd just because it seemed obscene by some arbitrary standard. I appreciate your trying to establish a standard. Perhaps the entire thing needs to be reorganized....removed from WikiProjects and made a WikiPage...eliminate the tagging template and maybe then peace will reign.--MONGO 16:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents and a possible compromise

I don't know that the project in theory necessarily goes against the principle of NPOV. Keeping Wikipedia legal is not POV. However, it appears that the Florida law might be misinterpreted by the Decency Project's proponents, or at least looked at in a way that is unnecessarily unfavourable to the official WP policy of non-censorship.

My guess is that those opposed to Wikipedians for Decency believe that the POV of its supporters is the unstated motivation behind the project and its actions (and, I must say, the title "Wikipedians for Decency" doesn't help the case that it really is NPOV). In any case, the burden of proof is on the project's supporters to show that their POV is not the motivating factor here (although those who oppose it must be fair and give the supporters a chance to explain themselves before rushing into a VfD).

As it stands, the justification for this project as presented on its project page starts with the following assumptions: 1) Either Wikipedia does not have standards for decency OR that the standards for decency that exist are inadequate, AND 2) that Wikipedia should have standards for decency (whatever they might be). IMHO, Agriculture, MONGO et al. should try and explain, based on the specifics of the Florida law and whatever else they deem necessary, why they believe the standards regarding potentially offensive content as currently endorsed in Wikipedia policy are inadequate. As it stands the project is simply a vague self-justification based on an unanalysed Florida law and a list of articles or other pages that the project leaders think should be deleted. Understandably, others see this as POV. In any case, I think that Agriculture et al. probably have their hearts in the right place, but did things in the wrong order.

So, here's my suggestion for what should happen now: The project's supporters should take a step back and explain in a NPOV fashion why the project is necessary (based on the specifics of the law) and what it will do. While they do this, everyone else should quit trying to delete the project. Then, after discussions have taken place, we can decide what to do. If Wikipedia is not following Florida law, it should start. But it first must be proven that it is in violation, which hasn't happened yet.- Haunti 16:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree. If this were 'WikiProject Keeping Wikipedia Legal', based on a properly researched reading of the Law, I don't see that anyone could object to it -- doing so would be a useful and important task. --Ngb 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


(The following was written in response to a comment by Agriculture that was deleted before I had a chance to post. In any case, my suggestion still stands, and I hope s/he'll get what I'm talking about)
I don't think that's what "these people" want to do at all. The way I see it, "these people" are ferverent defenders of the non-censorship policy on WP and do not see anything on the Project page to suggest that it is anything but an attempt to force some users' POV onto all of Wikipedia. That's not how I see it, but I can understand if others do.
Take the opening paragraph of the Project page: “Wikiproject Wikipedians for Decency was started on August 15th, 2005 to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia. This project is intended to coordinate efforts to bring articles to appropriate standards of decency, and to help find alternatives for inappropriate content as defined by Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia guidelines.”
The phrase “to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia” makes it sound like the point of the project is to impose a groups of users’ moral standards on the whole of WP. As well: “to help find alternatives for inappropriate content as defined by Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia guidelines”. The fact that some pages and media have already been suggested for deletions implies that there is some sort of consensus that they are in violation of WP policy, which there isn’t.
In any case, my suggestion is that you take some time to write down a NPOV reasoned argument on why this project needs to happen and what you plan to have it do. Perhaps you think that what appears on the front page is adequate, but most people don’t seem to agree. I think you have a good idea, but it just needs to be articulated better. - Haunti 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

On Second Thought...

Okay, developments over the past 24 hours have changed my mind about this whole thing. After seeing a notice going up on the Talk page for Wicca and seeing members of the project do all manners of ridiculous edits and VfD initiations, I'm now dropping my support for keeping this page. Agriculture, I think your heart is in the right place, but this Project has become a rallying point for all manner of moralistic, NPOV-ignorant people. I'd suggest you delete the whole thing and try again in a more sane, less POV-friendly fashion. - Haunti 22:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. I think the aims of this page are well taken care of elsewhere, and the name of this project smacks of fundamentalism of various unpleasant kinds. Exploding Boy 22:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I did indicate support for this project not being VFDed, but since it's now pretty clear to me (see below articles which have been tagged) that this project and/or it's members or proponents on behalf of the project is really attempting to engage in POV pushing and censorship (for example the tagging of Bisexuality or Hip hop coming into the scope of the project), because of these very provocative actions I can only see this as certainly not working towards NPOV and being a form of attack page. -- Joolz 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Haunti, Joolz: just to make it quite clear, those articles were tagged by an anonymous user who has absolutely nothing to do with Agriculture or this project, and who was probably hoping to provoke just this kind of reaction. I too think this is a rallying point, but apparently for people who would try almost any trick in order to get this project deleted. Frankly, I don't care that much about the issue, except that I want to see those people not succeed ;) ObsidianOrder 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I realise that not all of those edits were done by someone who supports the project. However, the point is that this project easily lends itself to such actions. Some of the edits in question were done by honest supporters of WfD, and even though Agriculture might be doing the right (NPOV) thing, s/he can't control the actions of all supporters. At the very least this project needs a fresh start. At most, it just needs to end. - Haunti 10:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Goodbye Girl

You're really opening a can of worms with the word "decency", you know. I'd like to call your attention to the following scene from Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl. Richard Dreyfuss's character (Elliot Garfield) has been playing his guitar late at night. Marsha Mason's character (Paula McFadden) comes to his room to talk to him about it. She knocks on the door and

McFadden: Are you decent?
Garfield: Yes, I'm decent.

She enters the room and starts to speak to him, then suddenly spins around and covers her eyes.

McFadden: Oh my God, you're naked. I thought you said you were decent?
Garfield: I am decent. I am also naked.

Decency depends on context. An autofellatio drawing, or, yes, even a photo, can be appropriate and perhaps even decent in the context of an article on autofellatio. Few people who would be offended by the image would not be offended by the article itself. It would be wholly inappropriate to an article on Disney. The law cannot be divorced from intent, nor can an image or article be judged separately from its context, nor can the great state of Florida exempt itself from Miller v. California.

I disagree with your project. Even if it does not come to recommending the removal of all material that would not pass Tallahassee community standards, I'm afraid it could have a chilling effect on articles and images that are encyclopedic and belong on here. I also voted keep on the VfD, because I think you should have a place to discuss this subject. --DavidConrad 05:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You're discussing values...we are discussing legal implications and encyclopedic merit. No doubt the intitial efforts came accross rather as a witch hunt...I had regrets initially once the Vfd commenced myself. I am not an advocate of censorship...I am an advocate of establish a baseline of context and content. Those that repeatedly state they wish no standards to be established already violate that principle when they registered. Wikipedia has standards...it is not a completely free enterprise. If it is going to become the only reliable source of web based information and a a household word to all, it must have at least a symposium of argument such as this project would protect. You can't silence dissent or else we all lose.--MONGO 05:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
You may want to be discussing legal implications. In fact, I tried discussing legal implications. But a Project entitled "Wikipedians for Decency" cannot possibly keep on the legal track for long. It will (and has) attracted every moralistic firebrand who just wants to censor WP content. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's what's happening dispite our best efforts. I would encourage the project to start anew with a fresh name (ie - Keeping WP Legal, or something like that), but WfD cannot continue as-is. - Haunti 10:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, don't forget that Jimbo's comments essentially showed that the project probably isn't necessary even if it sticks with its intended track. If we're not going to get into legal trouble and there's no unchecked wave of illegal images, why worry about it? - Haunti 10:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

tip of the iceberg

yikes. while the intent may be honorable, the problem I see immediately is that this codifies language that effectively says "you'll know it when you see it" as to what can and cannot be on wikipedia. Tagging Wicca as indecent is only a tip of the iceberg that will quickly slice through wikipedia if this is made policy. I would oppose this simply because while it might fix one problem, it will create several new ones. FuelWagon 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god and all that is holy! Will someone tell these damn Wikipedians to read up on issues before responding with the Slashdot-knee-jerk? Wicca was tagged by a troll trying to discredit the project. The project doesn't aim to codify language which says "you'll know it when you see it" or any other bullshit like that. The point is to examine Florida Law and existing Wikipedia policy, discuss with the community and come to a consensus about what is encyclopedic, and what will get Wikipedia into trouble, primarily with regard to images. The point is to take all the pre-existing case law on Wikipedia IFD's, statements by Jimbo about what can and cannot be on here, and provide a guide so people can help determine whether new content should be included. Now go sit in a corner and think about what you've done. Shame on you! This is why the trolls are the ones who run Wikipedia. Agriculture 18:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It is? So that's how you've been doing it--172.141.31.144 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I have always wondered why Americans are more tolerant to graphic violence than to graphic nipples. Perhaps you could care to inform an ignorant Euro about this?--Wiglaf 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This is who you can ask, and this is where you can reach him. - Haunti (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, he is just a politician. You never know what a politician thinks, only what he thinks gives him votes ;-).--Wiglaf 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I get the feeling that Jeb Bush is about to end up on a bunch of online mailers for gay porn sites--205.188.116.14 19:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder what your response would be if I called your excessively theistic language, which might be offensive to my beliefs as a Humanist, obscene? --Ngb 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd respond that it's noth theistic language but a quote from Rejected which is followed by "My anus is bleeding". Agriculture 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Can't help but admire the comeback. :) Nevertheless, do you take my point? What you seem to want this project to do ('examine Florida law', etc.) is inconsistent both with the name of the Project and the information on the Project frontpage, and I do feel that you're very misguided to conflate issues of obscenity/decency so totally with issues of what is encyclopaedic. --Ngb 18:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If the project survives, it especially has to take into account decent behaviour to fellow wikipedians.--Wiglaf 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Once the VFD is over, I am still willing to help to help the project be renamed and revamped to fit a better style, unless people want to drop it completely. And, IMHO, while some voted to keep the project, they wanted the project itself to be renamed and revamped. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure that I really want the project to survive, if it does I'd be more than happy to help make it into something constructive for the WP community, as per Agriculture's original intentions. - Haunti (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This project would have a better chance of surviving VfD if it were renamed. There is value in defining what it takes to comply with the law, as we do when investigating copyvio. But the current title is inherently NPOV. Perhaps something like "WikiProject: Compliance with obscenity laws"? --Arcadian 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC) (Addendum -- where I wrote "NPOV", I meant "POV"). --Arcadian 22:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, something could be salvaged from all this....a project as big as this could use a more coherent examination of legal issues. Rx StrangeLove 00:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
A problem with this is that obscenity law is practically a non-issue. As others have said, the law could only apply to Wikipedia as a whole, not individual articles or images. The educational merit of being the world's largest encyclopedia far outweighs the "indecency" of having graphic images. There is no need for a project to identify legal issues other than perhaps copyright. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The risk of lawsuits is always possible and there is nothing wrong with members of Wikipedia voicing concerns of this potentiality. It is a grave distortion by opponents of this project to suspect that those that wished to put a question mark in the form of a tag on what could possibly be articles and images that may be of potential legal`harm to the entire enterprise, were going to do so as some form of decency or morality police. However, I would have been an unlikly candidate to expect that I would have personally utilized such tags, hence, my removal of them. The core of my personal argument has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with what gives Wikipedia the most credibility. Having namespace articles devoted to what could be construed as offensive to many readers and contributors does not add to Wikipedia's credibility overall. If this enterprise is going to become a household word "check with Wikipedia", then it needs to ensure that, in the very least, these concerns are addressed. That we are conversing about them here is an important step.--MONGO 01:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Miller test

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: as I understand it, the Miller test would apply to Wikipedia "as a whole"; not to particular items as a whole, as you've implied in the lead section. If Wikipedia was to use some sort of quasi-Miller test, I would think the test would apply to "articles as a whole" or perhaps "sections as a whole", but not to smaller divisions. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact behind this claim is unclear to me. Individual articles are frequently syndicated by other sites without mirroring WP as a whole. While WP cannot be held responsible (I imagine) for what other publishers do, the apparent atomic nature of an "article" suggests that an article might relevantly constitute a "work." By analogy, if a periodical or series publishes one volume of obscene material, that presumably does not enable government prohibition of other non-obscene volumes of the same periodical. However, pushing against this, other publishers are equally free to "syndicate" a single paragraph or a single sentence from WP, which short excerpt I think is difficult to consider a "work."
Assuming Miller—or some Miller-like standard WP hypothetically adopted—really does apply at the article level, my feeling is that a single image would likewise constitute a work. WP enables viewing of a single image, and image may have a different copyright and producer than the page (or pages) it is incorporated into. Just speculating, IANAL (but I reckon I come closer than a lot of folks hereabouts :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
Oh, commenting on myself: I would nonetheless think that the "normal" presentation context of an image is still relevant to a SLAPS test. An image that is only prominently linked to from an article of genuine relevance should, IMO, be judged in relation to the encyclopedic quality of that article (or articles). Likewise, in a printed journal, someone could cut out an image with scissors, but a previously non-obscene image should not become obscene just because someone did such excision. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:01, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has it exactly right. The fact that images can be viewed individually on Wikipedia is a non-issue. Anyone can take a copy of Grey's Anatomy and cut out an individual image that some might consider obscene and look at it (or even display it) separately from the work, but the intended presentation of the picture is within the context of the work. Wikipedia is not billed as an image gallery (indeed "gallery" pages of any sort are quickly removed," and the typical user is only going to see images either directly in the context of an educational article about the topic illustrated, or after clicking on the image after first seeing it within the context of such an article. Hence, the proper test for the obscenity of any image in Wikipedia will always at least be in the context of the article, if not in the context of the whole of Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 14:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

MONGO vandalism

Editor User:MONGO is abusing WP removing all the members he imagines not to be sympathetic with him/her. S/he has no idea the reason why any given member has joined the project, and certainly has no right to remove anyone. This behavior almost certainly crosses the line of vandalism, and will be reported as vandalism in progress if it is repeated. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:32, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

I agree. It might also be argued that MONGO's behavior is itself a violation of WP:POINT. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the factual accuracy of this page really is disputed. It is unlikely that the characterization of Florida law given is at all accurate, and the dispute tag may not be unilaterally removed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:32, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

It is my understanding that joining a wikiproject with the intent to mock/disrupt it is itself a violation of wikipoint. Saying that you are joining the project with lines like: "Lets remove all pictures of people from wikipedia!" and: "I want to see a standard which demands an obscene image on every page!" is violating wikipoint as I understand it. If I am wrong about that, then please forgive me. Moreover, the users he keeps deleting have not added the membership tag to their user pages and have voted that the project be deleted, this indicates that they are not really interested in the project. Users who have joined with good intentions such as you, who have joined to monitor/rework the project are welcome. If Mongo's been deleting those users, then maybe it could be construed as vandalism. Banes 08:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not up to me, you, or MONGO to decide who intends to mock/disrupt the project (except perhaps through the RfC mechanism applied to individual editors; each editor's intent may be different). I don't delete everyone who makes a comment I think is silly, neither here nor elsewhere. But one ironic or irreverant comment is hardly abuse or vandalism in itself. Writing to individual editors requesting they remove themselves (or change their membership description) would be fine, but unilaterally doing it is a no-no.
FWIW, I have not added any membership tag to my user page (I had no idea such a thing even existed). And I also voted to delete this project. But the VfD vote is going to fail; it will get more than 50% deletes, but not 75-80% or whatever the informal "consensus" ratio is. Given that, I'd rather help shape the project into something useful than have it be either a mindless edit war or a locus of vacant priggery. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:34, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I am aware that it is not up to me, you, or Mongo. I am glad that you are intending to assist in helping to shape the project into something better through discussion. I have no problem with users who do not agree with the project's ideals but want to help change to project into something better. BTW, I have not deleted any users because I do not believe it is my descision who stays, who goes. Only a couple of users are actually troublemakers in my opinion, but, as you say, it is not up to me, and I agree with that. You, Lotus, and about three other members disagree idealogically with the project but are there to monitor/shape the project. P.S I am very grateful for the fact that you are indeed interested in the project (either way) and that you are thankfully not a mindless troller like so many on both sides of this Vfd. Banes 10:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
As I have stated elsewhere and was delayed due to a busy weekend, I intended to reshape the focus of the project, rename and move to usersapce in all liklihood, out of the project realm. I never intended this my contribution to utilze the use of tags on arbitraily identified images and or articles. I am most concerned about what will make Wikipedia a definitive source of information that will be a possible standard that will be approvable for citation within research papers and the like. I relaize this is a lofty goal. Therefore, I once again revert your "membership" because once the Vfd is over, the entire project, if it even continues, will only do so as another entity. It may have appeared to be a hostile action on my part, but it really isn't. My focus, and I do hope if you agree with them at that time, you will join my efforts are over several areas:
  • Discussion of what constitutes encyclopeic merit in both referencing and quality control
  • A through examination of Florida Law (not by me mind you, but by those with real legal expertise)
  • A mission statement that embodies the following:
  1. emphasis of Wikipedia:Accountability to enhance quality control in editing (not that there is anything wrong at all of course with anon editing, just that those that utilize a username just have more accountablity within the community)
  2. limiting edits to once a day as defined by such clubs as the Harmonious editing club
  3. discussion as to what constitutes encyclopedic in an effort to enhance the credibility of Wikipedia
  4. strong advocacy of WP:civ civility in edits and discussion

There's more, but I'm still working on all the details. In a nutshell, I ask you to not feel like my revert has been done in bad faith, it most certainly hasn't, but I politely ask that you refrain from rejoining until this whole thing gets straightened out after the conclusion of the Vfd. Personally, I don't care at this point if the Vfd succeeds...what I have in mind may not even develop from this project anyway. (FYI: it thats a 2/3 concensus to vote to delete but if less than 50 percent of the voters say they don't want this (and I am pretty much not a fan of the original details either) then the project is doomed anyway. I will let you know what I come up with and see if you are still interested.--MONGO 11:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

No edit warring please

Please stop edit warring over this WikiProject's page. If people want to join or add their name to the memberlist, let them; it's doing no harm. If they are on the list but don't actually do anything for the project, it's still doing no harm (many projects have inactive members). If they are actively disrupting the project, of which I have seen no evidence whatsoever as of yet, use the existing processes for dispute resolution (e.g. WP:3O, WP:RFM, WP:RFC). Radiant_>|< 12:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is doing harm when they alter this project page while it is in the midsts of the Vfd...it had gotten to the point that it no longer even came close to the nominated version. I don't care if the page is deleted as it only has one focus I would like to see addressed...a thorough consensus as to what Wikipeia's liabilitites may or may not be regarding Florida Law. In my mind, there are no serious conflicts as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but having a project page which partly examines this issue, without tagging articles, without trying to act as a meeting place to then inform members to go edit was elsewhere on a questionable issue, or to in anyway entice a spirit of censorship, is most definitely important. The project can be then used as a reference so if someone or some entity comes along and says, hey, did you people ever consider that you are violating laws posting pictures of pornography...we can then point here and say, yeah we discussed it in detail, examined Florida law, consulted lawyers and NO we are not violating Florida law according to our findings.--MONGO 12:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no reason why any page on VFD should not be modified. Since you are not a lawyer, and the WikiMedia foundation does have legal expertise, you might consider asking them. I'm reasonably sure that in our years of existence, such clear legal issues would have been found. Radiant_>|< 10:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
One user who is a lawyer (BD2412) has already said on this page that Florida law is not an issue. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
That is ONE editor, and that isn't enough. You call one a concesus?--MONGO 20:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
No, I call that expert opinion. Looking for consensus about whether Florida law applies may be the wiki thing to do, but it wouldn't mean a thing unless everyone forming the consensus was a lawyer. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Comments such as:
  • Zoe 06:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC) - I would like to see a standard which requires an obscene image on every page.
  • Sdedeo. I think the best way I can contribute is by pretending to be a lawyer and spreading FUD about Wikipedia being shut down by various government organizations.
  • Morwen - Talk 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Let's remove all pictures of people from Wikipedia!
These are spurious and disruptive additions to the list of members that do nothing to further the WP. What actions have been taken against these users? I see from their edit histories that they are quick on the draw themselves. --84.65.28.200 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Although these comments are probably out of place, that's all they are — comments. They don't do any harm. The only disruption caused is due to MONGO et al. removing them, which is hardly these users' faults. If they do actually actively cause disruption to Wikipedia, they can be listed on WP:RFC. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Signing up for a project you voted to delete borders on trolling. It's also a personal attack on the project's creator. Erwin Walsh
  • No it isn't. It's not personal and therefore it's not a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 10:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The project's creator has a skin as thin as rice paper if they are personally attacked by someone putting their name on something. A VfD can be for many reasons - many of which do not prevent the individual voting to delete something from also trying to improve it. Hipocrite 17:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I am against this project. However, comments by alleged 'members' of the project as previously posted are disingenuous and should properly be construed as any or all of: disruption, trolling, vandalism. By any of these criteria alone, the entries would have been removed by any of these 'quick draw' admins / users had they been perpetrated by A.N.Other. I repeat the earlier question: what action has been taken against these users for violation of WP policy?
Their inclusion in the list of project members should be removed for these reasons. Let them then defend their position on the talk page if necessary. --84.68.242.172 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a waste of time to do an Rfc against editors whose sole purpose is disruption. THEY voted against this project, not in favor of it, so their purpose can be nothing other than disruption and an attempt to contribute to the failure of the project. This absolutely is a severe violation of WP:POINT. Besides, the project is in Vfd...the alterations by some have made the project wording vastly different from the original nominated version. It doesn't really matter to me what happens to this project at this point as I intend to do something vastly different and only have the legal end addressed as a small part of that mission.--MONGO 20:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Go right to the RFAr, then. I look forward to a court of compitent jurisdiction. Hipocrite 20:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page at the most recent edit -- please would the warring users work out some sort of consensus here rather than constantly reverting each other's edits. --Ngb 17:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version and as one of the ones an original member, myself, claims to be here for disruption purposes. This is an egregios violation and you know it because you are within the dispute...you should have asked a third party.--MONGO 20:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am not involved in the edit dispute, so there is no violation. As for your claim that I have protected 'the wrong version', I am disinterested in which version is the 'correct' one -- I want the edit dispute resolved on talk rather than by war on the project page. I will unprotect the page when I see some evidence of discussion between the two warring sides on this talk page.
This is the second time you have accused me of bad faith and claimed that I am here to disrupt the project and still you have provided no grounds for this claim. If you have any grounds I would ask you to declare them. I really shouldn't have to point you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, meta:Don't be a dick, should I?--Ngb 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Then consider this a third...you are not interested in the project as it was originally written, you continued to reinsert names of those that obviously are here to disrupt the original focus of the project, you are a member and should have requested a third party to protect the page, one that wasn't involved in any way in the arguments...you know this...I had a third party, who didn't even vote or add to discussion protect the page on the 17th...that was a good faith request because at that time, the page was truly being vandalized. Prove to me that you are in agreement with the focus of the project as it was originally written and I'll retract my comment. My comment about members signing on whose sole pupose to disrupt was not in the protected version. You protected the wrong version and that constitutes bad faith since you have yet to demonstrate how you comply with the original focus of this project.--MONGO 20:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
As I have stated frequently both in my entry on the project page, in talk here and on your talk page I completely disagree with the original focus of the project as it was in clear violation of WP:NPOV. However, that has not stopped me engaging in polite and productive debate with other users here and in attempting to envisage a useful future for the project, reconstituted as 'WikiProject Keeping Wikipedia Legal' or similar. If you claim this to be bad faith and disruption then we have differing ideas about what these things mean. --Ngb 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The fact that I am a member of the Project does not mean that I can't protect the page against an edit war.
Such discussion is going on below in the poll. We'd appreciate your input, as only one side has commented. Hipocrite 20:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Labelling people as disruptive or disruptors just because they have presented themselves as having a different opinion about what the project should be about is 10x as disruptive. Members joining with the intention of re-shaping a project's goals are not in violation of WP:POINT, by contrast, those removing them would be. This is a Wikiproject, not a Wikiclique, right? --Mysidia (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What is a VfD vote?

A few (probably newbie) editors seem to think that voting "delete" on a VfD disqualifies an editor for improving a page she "voted against." That completely misunderstands what a VfD is. The VfD is nothing other than a vote on whether a page should exist in its current location on WP, in its current form; one can vote delete, merge, or rename for many different reasons. And regardless of the reason or the vote, that absolutely does not prohibit a concerned editor from trying to make an accepted page better, in fact it often prompts involvement. Moroever, VfD guidelines explicitly state that editors should try to improve pages during a VfD, if they feel such improvment might make the page encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

What is a WikiProject?

A couple (probably newbie) editors, notably MONGO, apparently misunderstand what a WikiProject is. A project is not an original doctrinal statement, handed down by Allah, that must never be touched by later contributors. Rather, a project is a way for multiple members to cooperate to a common end. Such cooperation includes editing the project page to improve it and reflect revised consensus and new knowledge.

If MONGO or others wish to help shape the phrasing of the project definition, they are welcome to participate. But there is no "true" member who can autocratically declare all "unbelievers" to be "false" members. That's not how WP works. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:03, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Poll

This poll is open to members of the project as of the protected edit.

Removing users from this project, for any reason, is wrong

  • Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 3rd choice

Removing any non-sockpuppet from this project, for any reason, is wrong

  • Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 2nd choice
  • Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:07, 2005 August 22 (UTC) Only choice consistent with WP.
  • 2nd choice. ~~ N (t/c) 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously. Do not remove other people's comments. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Removing any user from this project is fine, but reinserting oneself into the project should be definitive and final

  • Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 1st choice
  • The "project admin" thing seems unwiki. ~~ N (t/c) 21:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing any user from this project is fine. Reinserting any user into the project is fine

Removing any obvious troll from this project is fine

I will never join a consensus with this result. It is DOA. Hipocrite 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think MONGO has gone too far with that, although I haven't looked very closely on the recent situation. I think an excellent argument can be made for why those people should be out. Not necessarily anyone who voted delete - some of those may be willing to work in good faith to improve the project if the delete fails - but usually their comments say otherwise. I also don't believe that MONGO, or anyone else, needs formal authority to do this. If you think he's gone too far, RfC him. Also: if I had the time to watch this page, I'd have deleted some of them myself. ObsidianOrder 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. If you accuse someone of being an 'obvious troll', take it to dispute resolution. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

User X should have final authority over project membership at their discretion

Thanks. Just so y'all know: "If nominated I will not serve, if elected I will not run!" :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Johntex 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I believe this should be someone who was a member prior to the VfD. I nominate MONGO.
We will never reach full consensus for MONGO. Can you find a compromise candidate who has accused fewer of the valid members of this project of bad faith, and are any of the other voting alternatives acceptable? Hipocrite 21:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You have stated that you are opposed to the project's original wording, yet sign on anyway as a "member"...for what purpose? You will never reach full consensus with you here either so what's your point? I am an original member and I nominate User:Noitall.--MONGO 01:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You may be right about MONGO. I would go along with anyone who was listed as a member prior to the VfD. Agriculture would be the most obvious person if/when they return to editing. Johntex 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I hate to be the "no" guy, but you'll never reach full consensus with Agriculture. In fact, anyone who says that they intend to remove either myself or Lulu, or anyone else who bothers to say anything about how they don't want to be removed from the project is going to be a non-starter for me, and I suspect many of the other post RFD members. Hipocrite 21:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Erwin Walsh 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC); MONGO, given he and Agriculture founded the project and put a lot of time and effort into it.
You're kinda making me feel like you dont WANT to reach consensus. Should I feel that way? It's impossible for me to sign on to MONGO or Agriculture. I won't stand aside from the decision either, and it's like you don't even want to consider moving forward. Hipocrite 00:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO. I haven't been paying attention to any argument here (mostly seeing what happens with the vfd and removing earlier vandalism by Ril), but am quite interested in this project, having originally and substantially contributed to its ideas and tried to support it in the vfd. --Noitall 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I support User:Noitall's nomination. If Hipocrite is serious about compromising to a consensus, it seems Noitall is a good consensus choice given that (a) he is an original member and (b) he has not been involved in any edit warring or other violations of Wikipolicy, so far as I am aware. Johntex 02:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I could suport Noitall, but I'd like to know what users he intends to remove from the project, and how said users could prevent their removal before I am willing to stand aside from a consensus around him. I continue to believe that any of the other solutions I would support are far better. Hipocrite 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This is unwiki. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

m:polls are evil

  1. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Other: Please explain

Sheesh, I don't want to intrude - but do you folks want your project to have any credibility? Are you are really considering appointing a leader with 'full authority' to excommunicate from the projectat his/her 'discression'? That's an infalible Pope.... for a Wiki-project? Please don't think I'm trolling here, this is well-intentioned. Stop and think how this is going to look - and how those sceptical of this project will view it! --Doc (?) 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I could think of no better way to describe how MONGO wanted individuals added and removed from the project, as he has yet to disclaim his desire to remove me from the project. Hipocrite 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but they started it. No one should decide...the decision should be based on whether they intend to disrupt the project and those voting delete and then becoming members can be interpreted to have no other purpose.--MONGO 01:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Please read "What is a VfD?" and "What is a WikiProject?", here on this talk page. You (MONGO) apparently misunderstand what each are. If you wish for a WP page over which you have control, that's (mostly) your own user page (though even that doesn't exactly belong to the user). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
PLEASE READ * "Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:37, 2005 August 18 (UTC) Let's rename this project, however, to Wikipedia:Wikipedians for keeping existing editorial standards and procedures" and this constitutes your membership rationale in the "decency" project? This projects primary original focus was to address what constitutes encyclopedic worth by tagging images and articles that were construed as "obscene". I never agreed with the tagging, but agree that a baseline of encyclopedic standards that do not include pictures of men sucking their own penises is mandatory if this project is ever going to be concidered as a reliable reference base citable in term papers and the like...the argument has been that in some egregious circumstnaces, there are images and articles that do not give this Wiki credibility, only notoriety. That is a damn shame for those that have worked hard for no compensation to actually build something here. Your stance (I assume it is a joke) that existing editorial standards and procedures should continue will forever ensure that this Wiki will never be anything more than a blog in the eyes of reputable scholars.--MONGO 02:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You managed to successfully copy-and-paste my explanation for joining. Congratulations. That continues to be my rationale (though I think maybe a slightly different title for the rename would be better; maybe "enforcing" instead of "keeping"); if I had changed my reason, I'd edit the project page accordingly. There is absolutely nothing trollish about my honest reason.
FWIW, I have contributed FAR more to this project, so far, than has MONGO. He has vandalized, yes. But I was the first one to point out the relevance of "obscenity" (not "decency") as an analytic term. I was the one to add the link to Miller, which is the relevant legal standard. I was the one to formulate the legal questions that need addressing (IANAL, but I did my best at it). Moreover, I did some actual minor editorial cleanup of organization and grammar, something MONGO has not done. AFACT, User:MONGO is, in fact, a troll here, who has no interest in advancing WP nor this project. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
A troll?...read the definition insulting one. I have created over 35 articles and you want some kind of reward because you added a few things to this. The article was in the midsts of Vfd and your alterations while it was ungoing this was vandalism. You don't agree with any of the original efforts of the project and signed on as a member sole to alter and change it to fit your POV...your explanation for joining is not in keeping with the focus of this project so I can see no reason that you can explain how you are not in violation of WP:POINT.--MONGO 03:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Do you really have no idea whatsoever what a VfD is?! Or is this just further trolling? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:17, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Project "Adminstrator"

If selected as the project adminstrator, I would use my powers of user removal to delete users who I believed were not serious. I would not delete a user who then reinserted themselves, regardles of provocation. Hipocrite 18:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, how about we have a project administrator, who has certain powers, but not to just bump off any user. If we wish to remove a troublesome user, how about a Vfd (ha ha) among members, to have that editor pulled off? Banes 08:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The entire concept of a project admin runs counter to the spirit of the Wiki. Anybody can edit any page, and do not revert good-faith additions. Very simple. It seems that some people disagree with the aims of this project, and they will likely be watching it anyway to see what happens. You are only aggravating the issue by removing their names. Radiant_>|< 09:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

VfD Results

A VfD discussion has been held for this project page with a result of No consensus. --Allen3 talk 02:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good title change

I congratulate MONGO on a good choice of changed title, and support the new name for the project. Moreover, his revision of the project purpose statement that incorporates the Miller reference also clarifies a worthwhile purpose of advancing encyclopedic quality.

I haven't liked some of his past unilateralism and hostility, but I think this edit is good, and hope we can work together on creating a worthwhile WikiProject. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Hear hear, this is a good and non-controversial title. Is the Vfd really closed? Is the war over? Woo hoo! I would just like to take the opportunity to heartily thank all the users who engaged in the Vfd and other debates in a mature manner. Thank you. Banes 08:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It is done, but bear in mind that this thing is refocusing. It needs to discuss more than just imagery and how it is or isn't affected by Florida law...in fact, that should be about 10% of the focus. P.S. the vote was "no concensus to delete" but that hardly is any approval to continue along the path it was heading hence the name and focus adjustment. Any suggestions?--MONGO 08:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Kinda like Creationism... er I mean Creation Science... er I mean Intelligent Design.
A turd by any other name still smells like shit. -NickGorton 08:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What? This project will end up having little to do with the original focus. It isn't a censorship targeting project. It is merely a place to discuss what will make Wikpedia mainstream and make suggestions as to how to make it more respectable as a citable reference point...a lofty gaol since no colleges or schools currently say, gee, check with Wikipedia and use them in your next term paper. What is wrong with that?--MONGO 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your assertion is incorrect. Schools do use Wikipedia on a larger scale. I should point out that the current title is so politically correct as to be misleading - certainly no editor here is opposed to "encyclopedic merit". Reminds me of an old wikiproject called "Facts" which wasn't in fact about facts, but about inserting a certain religious POV into articles. Radiant_>|< 09:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You are right, Radiant. I object to the castration of this project which had good intentions. Erwin Walsh
Here we go again.....groan...This title is politically correct because in the Vfd it was attacked for it's original title, among other things. What do you guys (Erwin Walsh and Rama) who object think this project should be called then? Banes 10:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This project is entirely about decency, or at least that's what it says on the project page. Decency is a loaded word, and many people are going to object to what this project is going to do. But that's not going to change by hiding behind a PC name. While I'm sure it was well-intentioned, it appears that this has turned into WikiProject:people who don't know much about law trying to figure out whether Wikipedia is illegal and WikiProject:people who wish to vote 'delete' on images containing nudity. That is unfortunate. My advice would be to move this talk page into an archive to clear the junk and spurious accusations of trolling, then wait a week or two, then start fresh. Radiant_>|< 11:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think you haven't even given myself and a few others an opportunity to complete the alterations. I am not that much in favor of discussions about images aside from how that interlinks with Florida Law. I was in agreement with Jimbo Wales that there needed to a title change. You are mistaken about what MY efforts would be to deal with "obscenity"...my efforts would be solely to have it known, here in this more public of a forum, that I think we need to evaluate what gives Wikipedia the most credability. Furthermore, not one university professor that I know of would say, yes, Wikipedia is fine as a footnote for your research...not in a million years if we don't start thinking about ways to make this enterprise more of an encyclopedia and less of a blog.--MONGO 11:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was in no way talking about you specifically. Note that in my comment above I didn't tell you or anyone to stop - I merely suggested that you wait for a week or two to let the criticism and wild accusations die down. Regarding acceptability of Wikipedia in research - please take a look at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. I've queried at the Reference Desk if there are any concrete examples. Radiant_>|< 14:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Here you go. I count over 30 published books that cite Wikipedia as a source. Radiant_>|< 14:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote the whole page to get rid of the legal baggage and focus on how best we can defend articles with encyclopedic merit that are under attack and how best we can make articles which are not encyclopedic more mertitful. The image inline stuff is worth going over, so it's there. The florida obscenity stuff is all deep-6ed. Hipocrite 13:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the complete excision of Miller and potential legal issues. That should not be the whole focus, but it remains germane. Moreover, whether or not the Miller test is precisely binding on WP, the SLAPS framework is usefully illustrative. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:35, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit_Archive_2_4d4e.html"