Talk:Clitoris/discussion related to Nov 14 vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from Talk:Clitoris as the sheer volume of non-voting discussion on this vote had made that page unwieldy and difficult to add a vote to. --MR 02:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments


Contents

[edit] Isn't this poll taking too long?

  • Isn't this poll taking too long? I think the poll should end around October 25. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
What's the rush? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This poll doesn't appear to be even remotely useful. The question is specifically "should we replace image x with image y", and image y appears to be copyrighted anyway! There is a clear consensus already that we should have a photo, and that asap we should have a better photo than the one we've got now. I think that, given the clear consensus to have a photo, the real issue at hand is if we should have a disclaimer before the photo. I think we shouldn't; but if thats why the page is protected, maybe someone should start a poll about that. ~leif ☺ HELO 18:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not what keystroke was suggesting. He was suggesting that put a link to that diagram. Someone clicking on that link would be taken off Wikipedia to that website, so there are no copyright issues. Also the page isn't protected in order to keep the warning in. It's protected for the same reason other pages get protected. To stop an edit war. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict; now Theresa already said some of what I was going to say...)As I understand it now, after seeing Theresa's note to Robert above, the question is not: "should we replace image x with image y", but rather: "should we replace image x with an external link to image y?". The question, however, lends itself to many different interpretations, and the first one I thought of was your interpretation. And, as Sverdrup so tactfully hints, "Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link?" is not a Yes / No question... — David Remahl 07:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Some people in the San Francisco Bay Area sex education community have taken notice of the current dispute, and have offered to provide copylefted illustrations or photos for the article. Of course, the community will have to reach a consensus as to what would be appropriate... Thalakan
Great! Please ask them to create these images. Well-made GFDL-licensed photos and anatomical visualizations of both male and female genitalia would be extremely useful for a variety of sexology articles. -- The Anome 17:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seconding the above, this would be useful regardless of the consensus that is arrived here. Even in the unlikely event that no such images are included in this particular article they would be useful for similar articles and public resources, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. NTK 04:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ideal would be a photo montage showing natural variations in morphology. Of course, when thumbnailed to a sensible size, this would leave the individual pictures at low-ish resolution, but that's what clicking on the image to enlarge is for. Shimmin 11:29, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree, for illustrative purposes it is best to have a representative image that is large and clear enough to identify the anatomy. However such a montage would be good to serve the secondary purpose of showing variations, if such a montage could be assembled, given the difficulty of finding copylefted photos. NTK 04:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Define pornography

Question You say that the image on Clitoris is pornography. How do you define that term? Previously, people opposing the image have defined it in very strange and POV ways. — David Remahl 11:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Answer Use Bomipedia, as per Bomis guidelines :O) David, you know what porn is. What you don't know is what MDs like myself know - that the clitoris is not shown in its external avatara. 98% of this organ is only visible at dissection. Read the Australian studies, read Medline, Read Ovid and think for yourself, not out of the Wikipedian thoughtpolice box. The article you quote is only a diversion, to help us all lose time away from the real issues. Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants.". Do you see anywhere in Wikipedia a discussion on that real issue ? Meanwhile, the discussion on the clitoridial illustrative trivia has gone from trivia to grotesque. Happy illustration vote :O) - irismeister 11:53, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I know that only a part of the clitoris is normally visible. I know what porn is, too; in my definition it is material produced and used for the sole purpose of sexual excitation. It would be very good to have a picture of a dissection too, but showing the visible part of the clitoris doesn't make it porn. I honestly don't know what the rest you're talking about in the rest of the message (thought police, imperialism) has to do with this vote. — David Remahl 12:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source of image found

The source of the pornographic clitoris image has been found by User:Wikibob: http://www.iespana.es/masramon/2-2-Labios-menores-mayores-vagina-y-clitoris.jpg. --Cantus 23:59, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Great! But how do we know that our image came from them rather than them getting their image from us? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that image has a much better resolution than the one we have, but since we do not have our own original (it was deleted) we can't know for sure how the original was. At least it indicates that if it came from Wikipedia, it was fetched pretty early on. In the image history for Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg User:Guanaco indicates that the first version is also the original posted to Wikipedia, if that is really the case then the image provided on the link above did not come from Wikipedia. This, however does not mean that our image is not licensed under the GFDL, only that there is another image out there just like ours (but better). I'd ask Guanaco, if I wanted to find out. --Dittaeva 07:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In any case, we should replace ours with this one, it is of better resolution and quality. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:42, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

That page is newer that the posting of the image here. See http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.iespana.es/masramon/2-2-Labios-menores-mayores-vagina-y-clitoris.jpg

The date the page was cached is unrelated to the date the page was created. Page could have existed years before it was cached by archive.org. --Cantus 03:38, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
According to the web server, the file has a creation date of July 28th, 2002. Of course it could have been changed on purpose, but it is quite unlikely. Sam Hocevar 08:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is another possible source for the image http://www.geocities.com/genitales2000/ Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (And this one goes back to 2001) Perhaps someone who can speak the language (spanish?) could send them an email asking if they own the copyright and if so can we use it. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From that other place with the image, this one is interesting, since it does focus on the more obvious parts of the clitoris. One drawback is the hood appearing to be pulled back, but I suppose an image in either condition would be useful, perhaps along with one for the whole area, say something like this which can be used in the article covering the whole area as well? It's very likely that I can find someone who would produce a few custom images if we can specify exactly what we want present. Producing specifically for the encyclopedia would also remove any reason to suggest that it's actually a pornographic image. Jamesday 09:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can, that would be great. I hate having pictures with dubious copyright info on Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is the content, not the production or distribution of an image, that determines if the image is pornographic or not. It doesn't matter if Jimbo, himself, hires a photographer and a model to create the image. Photographs of the sexual body parts of actual people still illicit the same provocitive response no matter who pays for it, who is involved, or how, or even why those images were produced. KeyStroke 11:37, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I'd have more time for your opinion if you knew the difference between illicit [1] and elicit [2]. As you do not, I'm not about to take your rather, err, particular view on the definition of the word pornography on trust. You may have a problem with looking at pictures of fannies. Do not presume that everyone has your problem. --Tagishsimon
Not in England it isn't. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That was uncalled for. You should apologise. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 17:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that KeyStroke is confusing his/her opinion with established fact and thereby "calling for" such a response. Photographs of genitalia do not universally elicit provocative responses. I will apologise that the last sentence did not read "Do not presume that everyone has such a problem". You should maybe be less judgemental, Theresa. Or not, whichever. --Tagishsimon
No Keystoke is expressing his opinion. As we all are. Anyway it was the first part of your response that I took exception to. The fact that he confused the word illicit and elicit doesn't mean you should be rude to him or not consider his opinion. Anway I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm sure you just got a little passionate that's all. We are all guilty of that, me more than most. I shouldn't haved pulled you up on it here anyway. I should have said it on your talk page where it's a little more private. So I apoligise for that. Let's all try to be nice though, especially towards people with whome we disagree 100%. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystoke is not stating his opinon, he just feels that image used on the page is questionable, I think I might compromise with the users who don't feel the image is porn, how about link it to the article with a Disclaimer?--198 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned that we may be too late. There is an (as yet) unconfirmed observation that Net-Nanny already has listed the Wikipedia site as banned. This is very disturbing to me, personally. I have three grandaughters. In less than three years the first one will start school. That means that about nine years from now she may be ready to start reading articles here. There are articles I have initiated, and others I have provided major contributions to, that I would want my grandaughters to read. By the time they get to the age when my son would feel it wouldn't do them harm to come stumble across the image on this article, I fear I may already have left this world. I want to hold on to the hope that I may yet hear of one of my grandaughters reading an article I contributed to, here. But I am loosing hope, as (if the observation is confirmed) Net-nanny has already banned this site, and it may be 16 (or more) years until my eldest grandaughter reads an article I contributed to. KeyStroke 01:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Just let me say that I share you thoughts, and that there are some people here that are damaging this project deeply. --Cantus 01:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but I don't think that you are looking at the wider picture. Nannyware in my experience is always draconian in it's view of what's suitable reading material for children. Removing the picture will not solve that. We would need to remove the whole article because it almost certainly contains words that are on some nanny ban lists. While we are about it we would need to remove lost of other articles too. fuck comes to mind (have you read it? It's a really interesting article) Also [[[Hacking]], cracking, lock picking, breast cancer, great tit, middlesex, what about poisonous chemicals? or explosive ones? also rape, homosexuality, evolution perhaps, we don't want to stop the creationist from stopping their children know about that now do we? nudism, terrorism, penis, vagina, sex (of course) this list goes on and on. In order to comply with nannyware we would have to delete hundreds of articles. I know this becasue I work in a school, middlesex for example is not a joke, i have seen it with my own eyes.

The best way to deal with nannyware issues IMO is to write the best encylopedia the world has ever seen. Then school will want their pupils to use it and parents will pressure the schools not to use nannyware that blocks access to it. Giving in to nannyware demands will only result in a worse encylopedia. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is GFDLed. If you want your granddaughters to read your articles...well, first of all, you should just tell your son to show them your articles. But if you want all schoolchildren to read your articles, then I suggest you create a G-rated Wikipedia fork. Net-Nanny should be banning our website. It is R-rated at best. But we should not be censoring our content to avoid a ban by Net-Nanny, just like we aren't censoring our content to avoid a ban by China (which affects many more schoolchildren than Net-Nanny). Where should we draw the line? I'd say a good start is 50% of the world. If our content is banned in 50% of the world or more, then we shouldn't include it. Now additionally we need to have content which is 100% legal somewhere in the world. For now that's Florida, but if Florida or the United States passes a law banning our content and some other jurisdiction has no such ban, then we should move. But censoring our content because of Net-Nanny? No, that's just not a good enough reason. If anywhere, your anger should be directed at whoever decided to send your granddaughters to a public school. anthony (see warning) 15:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What a sensible idea A special children's Wikipedia is perfect! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but note that I never volunteered to actually work on this children's Wikipedia :). Maybe we could turn simple: into this, though. anthony (see warning) 22:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No I was being sincere. I really do think it's a great idea! I thought the idea of simple was for adults with maybe english as a second language. Or adults who wanted a simple overview of the topic without all the nitty gritty details. To be honest I don't know enough about simple to comment. Although I personally would prefer a children's version to be called "Children's Wikipedia". Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're probably right about simple. But I'm glad you like the idea. anthony (see warning) 22:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I must admit, the talk pages do actually seem to be working. (Yes, I am surprised). I like the idea of a Cild-epedia. BTW: on another discussion thread regarding this, I hit upon why it is that I feel the voting approach doesn't work for this kind of issue. Its because the people who would be bothered by the presenct of such a photo have no way of voting. Let me clarify. Only those who contribute to articles are the ones who get to vote. (Meaning that, in order to vote, you have to have gotten used to the "Wiki-language" enough to use it to put something in on the discussion pages. $20 says that less than 5% of people who do not contribute to an atricle, write things on discussion pages.) Now, the people who we really need to ask their opinion about matters such as these are the parents of young teenagers. Parents who (very likely) don't contribute, but would see Wikipedia as a great resource for their children. When I speak about trust and trustworthyness what I am talking about is living up to the expectations of those parents who cannot vote here. So the voting is skewed. To use an economic comparison, we have the producers of a product being the ones who provide estimates and forcasts of what the demand should be. Problem with that approach is (just like in former USSR) you wind up with dozens of ice-boots on the counter in summer and no hamburger meat in the counter because producers of ice-boots were already tooled up to do so. The complete voting approach needs to be re-engineered such that it is the consumer, not the producer, of encyclopedia articles that votes on content. Amazon has something that allows that, where people vote on book reviews ("was this review userull to you?"). Why don't we have something like that, here? In fact, why don't we even have something that records page-hits on an article? The economics of this is just backwards. KeyStroke 00:21, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with your producer/consumer dichotomy. Woody Allen doesn't let the public vote on whether or not he's going to talk about blow jobs in his movies. The New York Times doesn't hold a poll on whether or not photos of dead Iraqis are too offensive for its paper. Carl Sagan never held a poll on whether or not his books would be considered heresy. In each case the author(s) chose what to produce not based on popular opinion alone, but factoring in integrity. If you want a censored encyclopedia, this isn't where you should be going. I think there is room for compromise, for instance I would support having the image page linked to but not having the image inlined in the text, but in my opinion leaving this image completely out because it may offend someone is unacceptable. I have to add that I don't think voting is the answer anyway, whether it be voting by us or voting by the public at large. Wikipedia runs on consensus, not voting, and we should make every effort to address the issues of each individual. That's why I suggested a children's Wikipedia, because it addresses one of your complaints (you want your work available to children), while also addressing the opposing side (who feel that this image provides information which must be available to those reading this article). I'll even agree to provide some help to the project, but I can't promise to be a regular contributor, censorship and sugar-coating isn't my strong suit :). I think in terms of an online copy another reasonable compromise is to have the image linked to but not inlined, but I don't know if this has been brought up or whether others would oppose it. (Personally I don't like the "compromise" of adding a disclaimer to the top, but I don't oppose it strongly enough to care).
By the way, I just looked at the history, and I'm a consumer, not a producer, when it comes to this article. I have made no edits to this article. Considering that there aren't 19 others on this talk page I'm tempted to demand my $20 :). anthony (see warning) 14:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The bet was that less than 5% of the people who do not contribute to articles (any article, not this one in particular) will come and vote on a discussion page (any discussion page). And my point is that the voices of parents of children are the disenfranchised ones. KeyStroke 22:33, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Voting as to what gets put on Wikipedia is not a right. There's no disenfranchisement, because there was no franchise in the first place. anthony 警告 20:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and finally, all this having been said, I don't oppose removal of this image due to unclear copyright. My comments assume we are able to find an image where a real person (not some anonymous Wikipedian) claims to be the copyright holder of the image and licenses it under a free license (I believe Jamesday has said he is able to get such an image). anthony (see warning) 14:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[losing indent] We used to have hit counters, but they had to be dropped in order to save load on the servers because of wikipedia's exponential growth. Off the top of my head I think the stats then were around 50 page views for every edit. That's probably gone up because as pages become more stable, less edits are made, but page views presumably continue to increase. As for the 'consumers' voting, I don't know how we could do that fairly. Consider this scenario. A vote has been going on and so far ten people have voted in favour of removing the photo and none in favour of keeping it. Along comes along an AOL customer who feels very strongly that the photo should be in. He votes, refreshed the page then votes again. He can do this because AOL works in a peculiar way. Everytime an AOLer gets a new page they are randomly assigned the IP address of one of the AOL proxy servers. There are hundreds of these and so our rogue voter could vote hundreds of times each from a different IP. Meanwhile another person comes along who happens to be with NTL for example. NTL also uses proxies to cache the web. But with NTL you keep the same IP address throughout. Never the less hundreds of different people go through each proxy so our poor NTL customer doesn't get to vote because someone from NTL has already voted :-( Of course we don't have to use IP's to identify people, we could just let them sign their name. In which case our rogue AOLer makes up a hundred of different names. You idea, which seems sensible at first is a no goer. Having a vote between wikipedians, isn't perfect. But it's the only reasonable option we have at the moment. Anthony has indicated above that he is not prepared to work on a children's encyclopedia (at the moment) I OTOH would, but I can't do it on my own. If anyone else will help me I'll try to get the ball rolling. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hits are tracked, though not very accessible. The full list of URLs for October (so far) is available here. The file is 63 MB, so I would not suggest viewing it in the web browser. — David Remahl 22:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another image - Found in wikipedia

Wikipedia already has Image:Flushvul.gif that has not ever been censored and seems to be in the public domain. It has already been used in Vulva, Perineum and Vagina.

Looks horrible though... -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:10, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I agree, these alt.sex FAQ photos are terrible. Being in black and white distorts the subject, especially the vulva photo, and makes it look generally corpse-like. This one should be replaced. NTK 05:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

It's important to remember that no one will be offended by the image. What they will be offended by is the breach of what they think of as a universal rule. If you look through the comments by the antis, non of them say's that the image offends them, it is always somebody else. The presence of the warning is proof, in the mind of some, of the existance of this rule. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to caharcterize information in this way. It is also not practical as it requires the layout of the page to be further adjusted so the image cannot appear on the same screen as the warning. It fosters a belief in forbiden knowledge.--Jirate 22:03, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Hmm you do have a point. But I like to be pragmatic. I do believe that there are some people who find the photo offensive. Actually i don't think we can say that the antis aren't offended by the picture just becasue they argue that it may offend someone else. I think the lasyout thing is minor. For me on a 17 inch screen I need to scroll down in order to see the photo. Perhaps someone with a larger screen would see the photo straight off but it is very simple matter to fix this by putting it at the bottom of the article. Theresa
It's not the physical size of the screen but the number number of vertical pixels, mine is 768 and it just misses, resolution over 1024x768 will probabley show.--Jirate 00:36, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

I am offended, and any warning is just a figleaf. This is not Bomis! Please be considerate! I will fight until a decent illustration is introduced, to my satisfaction. Otherwise, we'll all be in trouble for contributing to Bomipedia more than to anything else! - irismeister 00:41, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

It is you that is being inconsiderate.--Jirate 00:49, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
A warning is a good compromise French wikipedia has a very similar one in it's "clitoris" article.--198 00:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It isn't a compromise.--Jirate 00:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
This article contains photographs of human genitalia seems to me to be functionally equivalent to Plot or ending details follow. Both are factual meta-information that a significant fraction of readers will care enough about to find useful. Shimmin 13:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Can you produce some evidence of what % of the population will be offended and what % feel it should be their for some other reason, and what those other reasons may be. The motivation of some users is unclear. I want a warning that warns about the warning, as I find the warning offensive, and I feel a significant propotion of the population will agree.--Jirate 13:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC) P.S. I don't think that this discussion should be moved to User:Talk pages, it should be conducted here where it can be seen in full, no divide and conquer.--Jirate 13:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anyone looking up genitals in an encyclopedia should not be surprised to see pictures of genitals. Anyone who will trully be offended by pictures of genitals will not look them up. I simply do not believe that there are hoards of people dying to read about clitorises (sp?) but mortally offended by seeing them. Get over it. The Recycling Troll 21:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well said. -- Schnee 22:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I was going to add a similar comment along with my keep the image vote. Inappropriate links to this article should be removed, but otherwise if you come to this article you should expect to learn about the subject matter. I'd argue that the ratio of the information content of a non-explotive picture compared to a text description is greater than the ratio of the offensive-capability of a non-explotive picture compared to a text description. That said, would it possibly make sense to break out the image into a separate article titled "clitoris (picture)?" I have no problem with a warning either. User:gcanyon

But Cantus, 198, and KeyStroke looked up genitals in this encylopedia and were offended. Where's the harm in having the warning? Why can't we give them this small measure of compromise? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, can you please talk to Raul who keeps deleting the warnings in Penis and Vagina and will probably delete the one here if this article becomes unprotected? Thanks. --Cantus 00:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've put a note on the talk pages of both articles asking everyone to come join the discussion here. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They were offended by the breach of their imagined rule, not by the image.--Jirate 15:43, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer warning

If Cantus' "images of a explicit sexual nature " disclaimer must stay, and I hope it doesn't, I propose that it be preceded by this new disclaimer to avoid offending anyone else: ~leif ☺ HELO 04:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article contains disclaimer text of a conservative sexual nature that may offend some readers.

Both these are POV statements, one enforcing the POV that a picture of human genitals is necessarily sexual, and the other the POV that the first POV necessarily represents a conservative viewpoint. Both include the weasel-phrase 'may offend some readers'. If it may or may not offend, then informing the reader of such is informing them of nothing at all. Why not just stick to the facts

This article contains photographs of human genitalia.

and leave the interpretation of this fact to the reader. Shimmin 12:04, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Me too.The disclaimer gives sensitive types sufficient information so that they can choose not to scroll down if they don't want to see such photogaraphs, without implying anything about ther moral value of this type of image. I hope that everyone else will come on board too so that so that this thing can be settled.I would love to be able to just point to this discussion in the future when the question comes up again (As it inevitably will) and say "We already debated this to death. Everyone from all sides of the argument agrees that this is a solution that they can live with" and be done with it. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, one that everyone should be able to agree on I hope. Shane King 13:48, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- Schnee 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to the disclaimer, but if there must be one I would much prefer Shimmin's suggestion that it doesn't use the word "offend", and says photographs of instead of photographic depictions of. I'm sure this same issue has and will continue to arise on many other articles, so perhaps there should be an official policy-setting poll to settle it. ~leif ☺ HELO 18:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is no better it still singles out "human genitalia" for special treatment. And from the POV of an encyplopedia it doesn't deserve it. If you wish to create a category for images that people may find offensive and place that in that category. Then people can see the category when they open the page as decide, and no special treatment will have been given. It would also serve as a mechanism for exporting Wikepedia to other sites.--Jirate 20:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Three problems with that - It won't solve the problem of people coming to this page from another page or from google and being shocked at what they see.There will be endless arguments about whether a particular image should go in the category or not. And finally the category page would be an absolute teenager magnet becasue it would show, all in one place, where they could find 'all the good stuff'. I have no problem with kids doing that, but I know that there are others on this page who would have a problem with that. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 00:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The problem is, I think, that some of these people have a problem with you not having a problem with that, and they'll keep on having problems until wikipedia is fit for sunday school. I say lets not bother to appease them with silly disclaimers, because even that won't be enough to satisfy some people. ~leif ☺ HELO 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We won't know until we try. If it doesn't work we can always remove the disclaimers at a future date. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that disclaimer is ok, are we going to put it on the Breastfeeding page too, which, btw is on the front page, and contains a photograph of a human breast? The Recycling Troll 20:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't show a nipple though. Back to this article though, as soon as the protected template is removed the image will show straight away even on this little laptop screen. Making the text size to Smaller, viewing full screen or increasing the resolution shows the image too. Basically it must be pushed even further down (more writing is necessary for that, really) or the whole idea of a disclaimer is pretty pointless. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
LOL if as much effort went into working on the article itself, as has gone into trying to find a consensus in this talk page more words would not be an issue ( Yeah yeah I know what you are going to say, and yes i hold my hands up to it) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 01:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So it is strictly the nipple that would be offensive, not the breast in general? How do you know? The Recycling Troll 23:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) a breast isn't a genital, so no we wouldn't put it on breast, AFAIK no one is advocating putting such a warning on breast or leg or ankle or anything apart from the genitals, let's stick to what's actually being asked rather than argue the slippery slope argument. 2) The great thing about Shimmin's wording is that it doesn't say the photographs are offensive, only that they are there. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 00:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, that as far as "warning" messages go, this one is pretty benign. But it is still useless noise, and if I saw such a notice on another site with anatomical information, I'd be distracted by it (and start thinking about why the war article didn't have a warning about the fact that the article contained text about loss of life, etc). The slippery slope argument is valid, since this decision singles out human genitalia for no good reason, possibly making it easier to extend the content warning policy to other types of content in the future. — David Remahl 07:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My main reason for supporting the warining is to stop the edit wars here. People have been arguing over this photo since it was uploaded 18 months ago it has been deleted and re-uploaded numerous times.It's been removed and put back in over and over and the arguments about have stretched to 3 long pages when the article itself is just about longer than a stub. Why should genitals be singles out for special warnings? Because some people do think of them as special. I think their attitude is daft, unhealthy even, but that is neither here nor there, it's not my pace to tell people what to think. Images are very different from words. They are much more shocking. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that we need to put a warning on any page because of the words (well spoiler warnings, but that's a different matter). It is unreasonable to go to a page titled clitoris or war and not expect to find words about clitorises or wars. It is not unreasonable to go there and not expect to see images. If the war aticle contains potentially shocking images - say a beheading for example then yes why not have a warning at the top of the page. I'm not saying for one minute that I think that a picture of a clit is anything like a picture of a head held up by a murdering bastard, but some people do. (otherwise they wouldn't keep coming to this page and trying to remove the photo) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In contrast to Theresa, I think this msg is exactly parallel in function to the spoiler warning. Enough readers derive negative utility from unwittingly reading plot details that we do them the service of putting the spoiler msg before where those plot details are divulged. Similarly, enough readers derive negative utility from seeing this photograph (either due to moral outrage, or due to suddenly having a picture of a vagina on their screen in a public computing environment, or any other motive that no one is in a position to judge) that it is a service to them to place a notice at the top of the article informing them of the photo's existence before they see it.
Personally, I'd make the msg less obtrusive. (Italics are sufficient to set it off from the body text, no colored box is necessary), but it is functional. Shimmin 13:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
When somebody goes to a movie article they may be after information about the cast, or the release date and not the plot ending details. When someone goes to the clitoris article they can pretty much expect, in a media with text and images, that they'll see text about the clitoris and images of it, both photographic and diagramatic. While your point is valid that people are offended by the image many people would be equally offended just to see the article exists and having the word clitoris in a large font on a public computer may be seen as inappropriate. violet/riga (t) 13:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I LOVE this disclaimer. So much, that I've included it in other places such as Penis and Vagina, and would love to have this page unprotected to change it here as well. However there are still some people, such as Raúl, who will keep deleting the warning without any discussion. --Cantus 20:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the protection. IMO it wasn't actually necessary because I was on my third revert and wouldn't have gone over 3. If people want to tweak the wording in order to work towards consensus, they should be allowed to. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting as far as I can tell all the instigators of the disclamers and all the calls for deletion of the photo, come from men. I think what we have her is a group of sad men trying to pretend to be white knights protecteing the honour of women, in order to impress them. In other words I think what you are seeing here is a bit chat up line.--Jirate 12:49, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I don't think comments like this are at all helpful. Please let's stick to the actual issues we have before us and not speculate at to the motives of people we disagree with. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The issue before us is that a minority of users here want to force a disclamer down peoples throats. They haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support their claims of others being offended. They are here on a moral crusade. They should not be tolerated in their attempts to pervert the encylopedia.--Jirate 14:35, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
They don't need to produce evidence that others are offended. They are offended (do you dispute that?). So clearly some peaple are offended. I don't understand how putting "This article contains photographs of human genitalia" at the top of an article perverts the encylopedia. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes I dispute their offense. I do not beleive they are offended by the image, I beleive they are offended by the breach of a rule they think is universal. Some of the critisism have alleged that the image will offend children or damage them in some way, it won't and it can not. The damage is caused by false warnings and the reaction of parents, not by the image. Placing the warning will just cause damage and encourage the beleif that there is something information in the article that is in someway special or forbiden. As part of the Liverpool Bienniel photographs by Yoko Ono har hanngng from lamposts all over town. They consist of a close up of a breast and one of female pubic hair. There was a few days of fuss and now they are not mentioned, because the images are totally non erotic. It was the imagination of those who had heard but not seen, stimulated by the warning like the one being discussed here who made the noise.--Jirate 15:57, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy. – Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, violet/riga (t) 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link to the disclaimer is at the bottom of the page (in the default MonoBook skin anyway) and for anybody (as unlikely as it is) to click on that link BEFORE reading the article, you would have to pass through the clitoris photo anyway. —Cantus…☎ 03:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any disclaimer about the content of the pictures on this or any article. I don't believe it is our job, or in our best interests to police our articles for things people might find offensive, aside from the standard practices of keeping the articles encyclopedic. That said, I'd also like to ask what purpose this disclaimer really serves? Kids who come upon the article will definately scroll down to see the image, regardless of disclaimer. Adults should not even be looking at clitoris when it would not be appropriate to see an educational picture about it. This only serves to give a specific point of view before the article starts, one I think we should not convey. —siroχo 22:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why shouldn't adults be reading an educational article about human anatomy in a public environment, say, a public library? The statement, "This article contains photographs of human genitalia," is an utterly neutral statement. Whatever POV you see in it is POV you brought to it, just like those who find POV in the photograph's display are only seeing the POV they brought. Shimmin 13:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

User:Leif has said it better than most here, please do not give in to this disclaimer-silliness.--Dittaeva 16:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, what is offensive varies widely through different cultures. In a US public library, a picture of a woman's clitoris may be offensive to some, but in Iran, a picture of a woman's hair would be, while in Afghanistan a woman not in a burka would be. Should we pander to each of these cultural preferences, or be neutral in applying a blanket disclaimer on all pages, or none at all. Mark Richards 19:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Anti's agenda

What do you mean?--198 01:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The warning was imposed, it is still there, where is the compromise?--Jirate 01:19, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
I feel the warning should be left alone (although I find the picture of the "clitoris" to Pornagraphic)--198 01:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Define pornographic.--Jirate 12:19, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Showing a part of a women's body such that I'm horrified.--198 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You find female bodyparts horrific? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:51, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Some people do, actually. But then, people find all kinds of things horrific; for example, many people abhor spiders. But noone in their right mind would push for a warning on the pages on spiders that they contain pictures of (surprise!) spiders. :) -- Schnee 18:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is worth fightining over, if this is in it is a compromise on what an encylopdia should be.--Jirate 21:06, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
There has been quite a lot of discussion since I have been able to get to this page. I can't (or rather won't) try to go to this page at work because I would be fired for bringing up a pornographic image. There has been a lot of speculation as to why those of us who object to this image do so. I have stated it plainly enough, before, but to clear up misconceptions I will do so again. Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia. It does not distinguish itself as an encyclopedia for adults only. Therefore the assumption is that children are allowed (even encouraged) to read the articles here. The greatest benefit of an encyclopedia (any encyclopedia) is when you are in middle school and high school. Young teenage boys will stumble across this photograph. Will they be "offended"? No. They will be gleeful. They will be sexually excited. They will show it to their buddies. And it may be the trigger that starts them down a road of sexual addiction to pornography that they are not old enough to control. That's why parents are responsible for their teenagers, because parents have developed the self-discipline that their immature children have not had time, yet, to develop. Parents need to be able to #1 trust that an encyclopedia does not expose their children to images they have already determined that their children should not see - or - #2 warn parents that such images exist - not on the article they exist, but on the front page of the website. Despite all the arguments against censorship, the fact still remains that parents have a right to determine what is acceptable to see for their children. We must not make Wikipedia into a vehicle to subvert that parental right. The label "encyclopedia" conveys a message to parents that what their child will find, here, will not be in violation of the parents moral standards. Those who want an image of the sexual organs of real people on the website want to subvert that parental right and trick parents into letting their children see images that those parents would prohibit, if they knew they were there. That is called "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" in the US state I live in. That is something that Wikipedia must not do. KeyStroke 22:10, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer makes it clear what the Wikepedia may contain. The label encyclopedia[3] makes no such claim regarding the violation of the parents moral standards as it does not pretend to know what they are. --Jirate 22:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Note also that there is a link to the wikipedia disclaimers on every single page of wikipedia, so no one can say they have been tricked. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KeyStroke says "I can't (or rather won't) try to go to this page at work because I would be fired for bringing up a pornographic image". Are you serious? You'd be fired for seeing this image, in a totally nonsexual (and thus not pornographic) context, but you wouldn't be fired for reading the Clitoris article on Wikipedia as long as it doesn't have a picture? Where do you work?! Should we really restrict wikipedia to meet these bizarre supposed workplace standards that allow reading about clitorises but not seeing pictures of them? ~leif ☺ HELO 02:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystroke you are stating your opinions as though they were facts. There is no evidence that looking at erotic images will start an addiction to pornography. This is purely your own speculation. What's more the image isn't even erotic. The porno mags i have seen (and admittidly I haven't that many, because for me, like most people, the novelty wears off pretty quickly) do not show images like this. What they show is the whole woman, and with very good reason. It is the expression on the woman's face that is the most important part of the image. They try their best too look alluruing, sexually exited and available. You get none of that with a cropped image like we have on this page. The purpose of an encylopedia is to be a font of knowledge. It has always been Wikipedia's stated mission to be a font of all knowledge. Knowledge of what a piece of human anatomy looks like is perfectly within the scope of what will soon to be the worlds biggest and best encylopedia. If parents don't want thier children coming here becasue this site will teach them things then they will have to keep their children away from here. But we cannot and willnot stop everyone else from gaining that knowledge in order to appease those parents. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KeyStroke, you really have to work on your understanding of the NPOV policy...
  1. Your suggested link would be just as easy for "gleeful teenagers" to show to their friends.
  2. The image is not pornographic, in the context of Wikipedia it is not intended to excite. I was a human male teenager not too long ago, and I can tell you that this image is far from exciting... Whatever taboos your supposedly "moral" upbringing has given you, in my opinion, apparently distorted your view of sexuality.
  3. How does "encyclopaedia" imply that the site only contains information that a certain parent finds "acceptable"? "Encyclopaedia" means: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. (...) In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge." — The American Heritage Dictionary. Based on that definition, I think parents should expect to find a _very_ large array of topics in an enyclopaedia.
  4. What your US state says has no effect on Wikipedia policy, unless that state happens to be Florida.
  5. I sincerely hope that every library in the United States is "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", because a library without a book on human anatomy would be a travesty.
  6. Wikipedia contains a lot of information that certain groups of people find objectionable. It is not feasible to note them all on the first page, like you suggest, therefore a link to the general disclaimer is available on every page. — David Remahl 23:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm rather shocked by Keystroke's comments. Thinking that a photograph of the female genital on an encyclopedia would lead to sexual addiction is absolutely insane. Kids are more likely to type the word into Google images if they want to see something like that - they won't come to an encyclopedia looking for porn. violet/riga (t) 00:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Loosing indent) After reading Theresa's remarks, I went looking for the disclaimers. I have been reading articles, here, for at least six months, and contributing for at least four. I never knew the disclaimers existed until today. I found the disclaimers hidden four levels deep off the Main Page:

Main Page ===> Wikipedia:Copyrights ===> Wikipedia:General disclaimer ===> Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

What I found there stated this:

  • Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers. See Wikipedia:profanity for more information.
  • Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy.

After finding, and reading, the content disclaimer, I have come to three conclusions:

  1. Wikipedia is not suited for children. Wikipedia should not be listed as a "trusted site".
  2. A general disclaimer should be prominently displayed on the Main Page that says "Some Wikipedia content may be considered by parents as being unsuitable for their children."
  3. We need a child-safe Wikipedia

I want to email Jimbo with my observations/recommendations, but I don't know if that is the accepted route to get them heard without bias. KeyStroke 06:18, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Feel free to email Jimbo (or, if you want, leave a message on his talk page). FWIW, I _agree_ that "Wikipedia should not be listed as a 'trusted site'" (not that I know completely what you mean by that term...). No site should be unconditionally trusted by default, and the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time makes it obvious that the content cannot be guaranteed. That said, I believe Wikipedia is suitable for children, if under parental (or other) supervision. I don't think there is any information in Wikipedia that could harm a child, if he/she reads the site under parental supervision. The world is a scary place, sometimes, and Wikipedia aims to document a lot of it, so parental guidance is advised. There should be no disclaimer on the main page. Since parents hold such widely varying opinions on what is suitable for their children, and an encyclopaedia by its very nature holds a lot of varying information, the disclaimer is self-evident.
A "child-safe" Wikipedia could never be NPOV, since someone would have to make the judgment of what is suitable for children. Therefore I don't think WikiMedia should involve itself in such an endeavour. You should, however, be aware of the fact that anyone may fork Wikipedia, if they find that Wikipedia's goals or methods conflict with their personal conviction. — David Remahl 08:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystroke the disclaimers are on every page.You don't need to go to the main page or the copyright page. In the monobook skin look at the very bottom of this page (It's probably at the bottom of the page in other skins as well but i haven't checked) There are 4 links, the copyleft licence, about wikipedia, disclaimers, and mediawiki. From the general disclaimer you can then go to the content disclaimer. So it's two levels down, not four. Also if you email Jimbo be sure to wikipedia in the subject field. He gets a lot of mail and doing this stops his spam filter.Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 09:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ever picked up a printed encyclopedia and seen the pictures in there? Without any warning on the front cover? Our current disclaimer system works fine. violet/riga (t) 10:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In what way is this place not "child safe". What you are trying to do is remove eveyoneelse right to free speech. As Wikipedia not being a trusted site, what is un tustworthy about it? That it doesn't have your personal bias? and you assume everything in the world does. It is you that introduce bias into this.--Jirate 11:28, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Many people don't want their children to view such images, that's obvious enough, but as I said above there are many better and easier sources of porn than wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 11:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand that, but it isn't a safety issue.--Jirate 11:57, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

If a kid really isn't ready to see a picture of a clitoris, then his parents or guardians should browse the internet with him, especially a site like Wikipedia. I have no interest in bypassing net-nannies by removing a picture, as that would be dishonest to our readers. Perhaps we could make a special project "Kidipedia" for kids only? —siroχo 23:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Siroxo. We have the content disclaimer, there is no need to tag individual articles. And the 'spoiler' arguement does't hold water, because unlike spoilers, there is no plot or content that would be ruined by reading about it here. →Raul654 02:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Net Nanny and others

Surely the best way around this for a list or lists of pages that various people want blocked or redirected, made available to NetNanny and for that to block or redirect accordingly. The list could be stored on Wikipedia. It would mean pursuading the authors of Wikipedia to play ball.--Jirate 01:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

No, why should we do their job for them? They're free to create lists of pages that they want to block, either automatically or manually, but why should we compile a list for them? But if anyone wants to spend time doing this, please go ahead... — David Remahl 01:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because it will increase the utility of the encylopedia. I'm sure some of the users would be prepared to do this. And of course it's not just open to NetNanny any blocking software can do it.--Jirate 01:21, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
It would also be useful on sites like [4], a wiki mirror, which for shuttle returns ' a Censored page, the object batted back and forth in badminton'.--Jirate 01:33, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
I think censoring software should censor all of Wikipedia. Even a content rating system would not be fool-proof, since anyone can edit any page at any time and add any information. Thus, a blacklist (or whitelist, for that matter) could get out-of-date at any time. — David Remahl 01:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is censoring by blocking the entire site. Yes they could get out of date and also censoring software can produce false negatives. No system will be 100% proof.--Jirate 01:51, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
(drop indent) Ok, so start doing it then! A series of [[Wikipedia:List of pages that people with [XYZ opinion] may find offensive]] would be fine with me, especially if covered by the NPOV policy (i.e. supported, "the pope said that homosexuality is a sin, so Gay pride belongs on Wikipedia:Pages that Catholic Christians may find offensive."). — David Remahl 10:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not doing it, I'm simply sugggesting a mechanism. What various groups want in the list would be a source of intrest to me. As I said it would also require NetNanny to alter their code, I'm qualified to do the mods but not to produce the lists.--Jirate 11:48, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

That's the point. Everyone will have their own list. People should not read encyclopedias if they are likely to be offended by facts. They probably shouldn't surf the internet if they are going to be offended by anything. Click here. ;) Intrigue 21:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your missing the point a lot of people's access to the internet is controlled by someone, if what is being said about Net Nanny is true that means no access to any part of Wikipedia, not by their choice but by their parents. I'd rather find a method of addressing this problem. Having a list locked for writting and administred by some jesuit preist should satisfy the strictest catholic.--Jirate 21:51, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
That's madness. If it's the parent's choice then they pretty much have the right to dictate what their kids can and can't look at. Net Nanny should have a policy of stopping particular pages rather than blocking an entire site - no doubt this could be done quite simply. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that Jirate is assuming that net nanny blocks access to wikipedia becasue of pages like clitoris. I very much doubt that this is the case. I strongly suspect that sooner or later all nannying software will block access to wikipedia, wikibooks, wiktionary, in fact all the wikimedia projects. This has nothing whatsoever to do with content and everything to do with access. We allow anyone to edit a page. Is that child safe? We are all talking here on this talk page. Most nannying software blocks access to chatrooms, Why? Because it's not safe to allow children to chat with strangers. Let's face it. There is nothing we can do about nannying software. So let's not bother trying on concentrate on writing an adult Wikipedia instead (It's always been intended for adults after all) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The problem then is one your going to have to solve for you Wikipedia jnr. Also creating an encylopedia which isn't as accessible as possible seems to be missing the point. We can do a lot about nannying software by pointing out it's failings and trying to address the problem, rather than just burying heads in the sand.--Jirate 14:28, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
If you come to meta you will see that the problwem is already solved. Children will not see the same site as contributors. As far as children know, the web site will be like any other. Not a wiki at all if I understand the proposal correctly. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 17:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So you're going to do a junior wiki that's not a wiki? Or at least one that juniors may not edit? Ok, I suppose it's good if we get a $10,000 grant out of it, but as a child I'd feel offended by the lack of trust of my self-preservation and the lack of sense of value of the material I could potentially have contributed. Could you post a link to the meta page, so I can follow the reasoning? (I'm lousy at finding my way around meta...) — David Remahl 06:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It looks like what's probably going to happen is this - developement will happen at wikibooks. This developement will have an aim of producing a print version. This will either be a booklet or magazine, that is cheap to buy. -The idea is that children in developing countries will be able to afford to buy the booklets, where they cannot afford web access. Obviously for a print run we need a stable version. This stable version will be put up at another website. This will not be a wiki. However, there is no reason that a child couldn't go to wikibooks and work on the developement versions, provided of course that there school or parents didn't have nannying software that blocks wikibooks. The reasoning behind this, is that children who are just doing their homework will not necessarily want to be exposed to flamewars, personal attacks, etc of the kind that routinely goes on the talk pages of some wikipedia articles. Everything is still in very early discussion phase. So please do come to meta Wikijunior and post comments on the talk page. We have a few interested people but we need many more. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is the obvious solution and equally as applicable here. So why did you present it as such a problem when you already have a solution.--Jirate 19:54, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that since this website is going to be blocked by nannyware whatever we do anyway. then we don't need to worry about nannyware, and we don't need to do anything about it. Theresa
So why wont they blockyou Wikijnr then? If it will work for Wiki jnr why not this? We do need to worry about Nannyware and we do need to do something about it.--Jirate 10:26, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
Have you not read the plan at meta or the comments above by Theresa? That explains why! violet/riga (t) 10:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes I have read them all, and asked questions about them.--Jirate 12:13, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because wikijunior (Note:That will probably not be it's name) will not actually be a wiki. Children will not be able to edit it, and in particular children will not be able to post personal details about themselves on it (As they have done here). You keep saying we need to worry about nannyware but you're aren't saying why. This is an adult website. It has been from the word go. Why do we need to worry about net nanny? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 10:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have said why and to repeat 'Also creating an encylopedia which isn't as accessible as possible seems to be missing the point'. People of all ages accessing will be blocked by NetNanny. Part of your reasoning about Jnr seems to be to produce an easier reading version, not just a censored version, which may help younger children but doesn't help 12 year olds + or those with special interests. Whilst libraries have Jnr sections, I don't ever remember being refused access to the normal or reference sections based on age.--Jirate 12:13, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those reference sections have details and images of the clitoris along with other articles (and parts thereof) that some people here deem inappropriate. This encyclopedia, in order to be as complete as possible, must have these articles. If NetNanny and other filtering systems block Wikipedia then that is their choice and there is nothing we can do about it other than directly contact them and discuss it with them. violet/riga (t) 12:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'reindent' There is plenty that can be done, I have suggested mechanisms and Theresa Knott has provided the idea of a RO copy. So their is plenty that we can do. Have you read any of my comments?--Jirate 12:23, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

The people behind the nannyware will not go to any more trouble than adding or removing a site from a list. This pedia has articles on BDSM and a simple way of chatting to other people. That will mean that it remains on their list. I have read your comments but doubt that NetNanny or any other would care - we cannot guarantee that the content held here is acceptable for kids (talk pages, new articles, vandalised pages, etc.). violet/riga (t) 12:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then I suggest you reread them.--Jirate 12:46, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
We disagree. This is an adult site and as such should be banned for children - a wiki is inherently unsafe. The reasons I stated above make me think that NetNanny will continue to block Wikipedia, though I applaud your efforts and the efforts of others if you can convince them otherwise. violet/riga (t) 12:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let me back up what violetriga is saying with an example. A few months ago we had a child editing wikipedia from his school. I won't name this child, but as this is a real case not a hypothetical one, some people might recognise him. He did quite a bit of childish trolling. As part of that trolling he accidentally revealed the following information about himself, his real name, his phone number and home address, his age, his school, the name of half a dozen of his friends. None of this was deliberate, he weas simply too young to understand how to keep private information private. I was so concerned about his slip ups I emailed his head teacher to point out the danger. Another admin telephoned his parents. I'[ve subsiquently deleted all the information about tis child from wikipedia but the point is, children, on their own cannot be trusted to act in their own best interests all the time. of course there are some very sensible children on wikipedia. Their parents clearly have made the right decision in allowing them to edit. But if a parent or a school decides to use nannying software to restrict the web in the interests of child safety then obviously wikipedia will be on the list, and nothing we do short of abandoning being a wiki will stop that. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You have already suggested a read only version, the read only version would not suffer the same problem, why is it that you think a Read-Only shade is only applicable to Wiki Jnr.--Jirate 14:15, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
Because the sort of nannying software that is likely to block wikipedia is installed on machines that children use. I.e. in schools, or parents install them at home. It's true that some adults have nannying software on work machines,l but by and large this is rare, and not something we particlulaly need to worry about. Certainly making wikipedia read only won't affect workplace bans. All of our mirrors (and there are loads of them) are already read only, so i don't think there will be any reason to produced a wikimedia supported read only version of the adult wikipedia site. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I give up.--Jirate 19:41, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy Deletion Notices?

So what's the deal with these speedy deletion notices? Multiple ones. AND protecting said deletion notices? I have a sneaking suspicion that this page isn't even a candidate for speedy deletion. I don't have the patience to wade through the specious arguments against female body parts to find an explanation of this madness. Timbo

I second. I am horrified by how unprofessional it looks. Would someone remove these ugly templates or may I do it ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Someone who I didn't see expressing an opinion either way in the discussions here apparently unintentionally caused them to appear. Someone else corrected the mistake. Jamesday 07:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How very strange. I don't see any speedy delete notices. I have no idea what you are talking about. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was fixed thank god :-) It was really defacing the article :-) I think it had something to do with utf-8. SweetLittleFluffyThing
According to the article's edit history, there were no additions or deletions at all recently (after it was protected, that is). I'm not sure what you're talking about, thus... a database glitch or something, maybe? -- Schnee 13:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The template used in the article (Template:Unicode) was included three times, that template had a speedy deletion notice on it for a while which caused the whole mess, i've removed the (useless) template for the article which should prevent any further fuckups of the kind. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:58, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

[edit] Having lost the vote

It seems that the anti's have moved into their more normal manipulative and dishonest mode. From my talk page.

I don't suffer fools gladly. If you want to discuss anything go and do it on the Talk:Clitoris.--Jirate 23:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with you Irate, what do you suggest be done with the Clitoris page?--198 03:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

.--Jirate 15:56, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion since the beginning, and I've read your Talk page, and I have no idea what you're trying to say with this item. Are you just trying to call attention to a private flamewar? Why? ←Hob 17:12, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
I'm trying not to have people split the talk up into little chunks.--Jirate 19:25, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Accusing people of being maniplative and dishonest because they tried to have a talk with you on your talk page is inflammatory and violates our no personal attacks policy. Please Jirate, assume good faith on the part of 198 and the other antis. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd already told him If you want to discuss anything go and do it on the Talk:Clitoris.--Jirate 02:58, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)


[edit] Question for antis

I have been puzzled by claims that the picture is pornographic. Is the problem that the woman is touching her genitals? --Minority Report 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)