Image talk:Keratoconus1-800.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wow this image is disgusting. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we get a new image on the front page!?--KingZog 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The side profile of a person, zoomed in on his eye, is disgusting? When did that happen? Anybody with contact lenses opens their eyes that much everyday. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 05:37

Actually, I came to the discussion page to see if anyone else thought it was a bit unsettling! I think it's the way it's so focused on the irregular shape of the eye that makes it so. --Impaciente 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Repulsion is in the mind's eye. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 06:04

You should see some of the other images I have where I work, like ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, or corneal ulcers (imagine a canker sore on your eye). On a more serious note, images like these are important because we can 1) use them to track the progression of a disease, and 2) we can use them to show doctors in training what to look for. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That image actually looks quite cool. Can the cornea really take on a cone-shape, or is this a vanity article? Scott Gall 10:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) PS: What do the Japanese characters in your signature mean?

The sufferers of keratoconus thank you for your sensitivity. — ceejayoz ^talk 13:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

'the image is disgusting' ? this is an encyclopedia, not a holiday brochure !! seriously though - i think the original image illustrates the condition perfectly and should be retained ahpook 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was freaked out just to see a close-up of somebody's eyeball with their eyelid uncomfortably spread. Maybe I'm more squeamish than most, but I'd rather not have this on the front page. Here's hoping that the Third degree burn page is never expanded enough for a front-page feature photo. ktheory 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's not that shocking, and Wikipedia is not censored. There might be a case if the image is just there for shock value, but it's not -- it helps to illustrate just what the condition is about. Thus, it's a very effective picture and is a positive contribution to Wikipedia. --^hello,gadren 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored, and I do not believe that this image was inappropriately placed on the front page. However, I do find it rather repulsive. I don't believe that this takes anything away from the people suffering from this disease, nor from the validity of the illustration of this image. My remark was made more as an off hand comment, as I just do not like looking at this image. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

No exact URL is provided for the image's source, so it's not possible for other editors to verify that this image is indeed under a CC license. CC licenses are unusual in university-produced materials, so the lack of an exact source, for verification of license, is a serious defect here. Tempshill 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check my discussion with User:Ed_g2s, which you can see here and here. Hopefully that will help. There is no URL, because this is the only place it is shown online. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's very weak documentation: an anonymous photographer who may or may not be the author, vaguely stated that it could be distributed with credit to the department, and the person who decided it ought to be licensed under a CC license was you, a person who is not the author; but the university is probably the author because the photographer probably took the photo while on the job. This is sufficient IMO to get the photo deleted. Unfortunate because it's a great photo. Tempshill 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)