Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 2

Contents

[edit] 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)

I believe that in the spirit of an international encyclopedia, decency should simply be defined as "the quality of being polite and respectable" (WordNet). This is not easy, but it has to take in consideration that our encyclopedia is consulted by people of all backgrounds and origins, by minors, and by seniors. --66.11.179.30 05:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Good title change

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Title change

[edit] 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)
I agree with your intro, but WikiProject Amature Lawyers Talking About Irrelevent Laws is creaping back in to the new sections. This is about encyclopedic merit - blue laws, server locations and all that other junk is for ALTAIL. Hipocrite 17:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What is ALTAIL?
I don't object to a certain amount of the "Amateur Lawyers" thing though. Certainly I do wish more would defer to real lawyers (but then, even the helpful BD2412 here is not Wikipedia's lawyer). If some content is questioned, the matter of whether it fulfills Miller is a highly relevant argument IMO. And if Florida (or some other jurisdiction) passes a new wrinkle on the COPA or CDA, we want to pay attention to that too (not to censor content, but to understand whether our current "encyclopedic merit" recommendations no longer allow hosting in a particular jurisdiction). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Every word written by non-lawyers, or lawyers outside their speciality about a novel subject is hogwash. That's why I haven't taken a position on anything regarding the law, except to state with certainty that everyone, including BD, however great of a lawyer he is (unless he's an IP+Constitutional+Media attourney, in which case he is qualified), is just not qualified to discuss. Its a waste of our time. Hipocrite 17:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
According to BD2412's user page, he is an Intellecutal Property/1st Amendment lawyer in Florida. So he's pretty darn close to the best expert we'll find. Nonetheless, no matter how close to the right specialty, he's still not Wikipedia's lawyer, to the best of my knowledge. In other words, what he says is still not legal advice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:41, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Ok, so he's qualified. Looks like I assumed and got an ass made out of me. Hipocrite 18:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to redelete those sections untill tommorow, but why do we have to talk about irrelevent laws, exactly? It has nothing to do with merit. Hipocrite 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE do no delete those sections at all without some consensus on the talk page first! Certainly feel free to edit them for clarity, focus, and scope. I've tried myself to refocus to better match the revised project goals, but I'm sure my changes are not perfect. However, large, undiscussed deletions are very bad wikiquette!
If a rough consensus of editors really does agree that "let's lose all the legal issues", I'll happily concede to that opinion (even though I believe the matters are germane). The material was generally added in good faith, and with a plausible relation to this project's purpose. And the material even mostly made it through the edit warring over random deletion of memberships. So don't just kill it w/o discussion.
If a consensus emerges around keep or delete, I'll follow it. I just edited them down dramatically in scope, and removed all amature lawyering. If I was too drastic, please feel free to go back the other way - I expect the pushandpull will make things better. Please retain my redirect of the obscenity statutes to the florida site, however. I don't trust moralitypolice.com Hipocrite 17:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has lawyers. Well-meaning editors with no legal background aren't really helpful in that area. Radiant_>|< 07:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Location of Wikipedia

I expect I am the most qualified member of the project to discuss the legal location of the project, and I am massivly unqualified for such a discussion. Is Lawrence Lessig a member of the project? If we could get him on board, then I'd be happy to have him decide where we are actionable. I think we're pretty much setting ourselves up to waste a lot of time as non-lawyers trying to write novel legal theory without a case to fight about in court. Hipocrite 17:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you the most qualified member to discuss the legal location of WP? Are you involved in the hosting infrastructure or something? Or in the incorporation papers? I'm not being rhetorical here, I honestly just don't know the motivation for that statement. FWIW, Lessig is a great guy, but he's not especially an expert in jurisdictional questions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:51, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
I deal with the incorporation of corporations as a career, and my professional interest dovetails with where people can be sued. IANAL, but I hire them to do things for me more often than the average bear. Lessig is relevent because of his internet expertise, and it's possible he's reading this. Someone with experience in jursidictional fights would be fine also, but (AMATURE LAWYERING STARTS) given that wikipedia is entering into licencing agreements with thousands of editors all over the country, it's trivial to long-arm it into any jurisdiction with a long-arm statue. (AMATURE LAWYERING ENDS) Disregard that statment, because it's a waste of your time to read, as is everything else on the topic.Hipocrite 17:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Where is Wikimedia incorporated? The concern expressed earlier was about hosting site, not incorporation status, FWIW. But either could have jurisdictional relevance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Without doing legwork to verify, Florida [2]. I do not know if the wikipedia itself is seperately incorporated, or how the IP of wikipedia is owned. The domain name is owned by either Jimmy Wales, Bomis, or Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. I'd need to do research on the xfer from Bomis to Wikimedia to determine ownership with any real certainty, and I doubt I can do that research without suing people and demanding the docs, which seems like a big waste of my time and your money. The foundation on it's about page says it buys the hardware, but they might do it through a downstreaming of funds. If I were to sue something, I'd just go ahead and sue Jimmy Wales, Bomis and Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, joint and several, and perhaps some other individuals if they had enough $$, and sort it out in the wash. I'd sue them wherever I wanted, and I don't think it would be a novel theory to say that in whatever jurisdiction I chose, Wikiwhatever had significant enough operations to make them subject to local law. IANAL, but like I said, I do this. Hipocrite 18:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scope and focus

Folks, I agree with both of you but think that the legal ramifications of the images should be but a small part of this exercise. The miller test is an excellent manner in which to gauge an employ a level of standard. I think we should get a few legal voices to chime in (as has already happen)..perhaps 3 to 5 voices, some educators as well to discuss what will make Wikipedia gain the level of respect necessary to be as citable a reference base as most hardbound encyclopedias and a discussion of quackery, poor referencing and other things that are necessary to ensure that articles become less POV, less "americacentric" less white male oriented and less ethnocentric. (ie: Native Americans or Indians?). These are the things that I see this project focusing on.--MONGO 20:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that images should not be everything. And I also agree that WP is too US-centric, white-male-oriented, and generally of narrow viewpoint. I'm not sure this project can really expand to cover all those shortcomings though. For example, the "Native American" vs. "Indian" thing is complicated; "Indian" has a colonialist history, but members of a lot of tribes still prefer it greatly to "Native American" (and other individuals and tribal governments go the other way). In fact, even on an edit on this page, I had an editor rather diss me for using the slightly less imperialist adjective "USAian" (rather than the slightly arrogant "American" for USA... though now the edit takes out any national adjective in describing the Miller test).
I'm starting to ramble on this, but my point is really just that a lot of these things need to get hashed out at the Wikipedia style guidelines. Neither side of the usage is "unencyclopedic", even if there are good reasons to prefer one usage over another (including, but not limited to, avoiding ethnocentrism). I think focusing this project essentially on the SLAPS test is good, but we shouldn't creep to worrying (right here) about every other possible ill. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:33, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Membership shenanigans

[edit] Merging Wikipedia: WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship into this

Now that this project is focused on upholding encyclopedic merit and not on abstract notions of decency, it is plain that Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship should be merged into here. Preserving encyclopedic merit in articles is, after all, the very heart of any valid anti-censorship motion on Wikipedia; the energy that went into both that and the old decency project should instead go into determining the boundries of encyclopedic merit, since that dispute was the real issue for both camps. Hopefully this merger can be completed as swiftly as possible to facilitate constructive discussion instead of useless division. Aquillion 10:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any merger, so troll off home. Erwin Walsh
No, the focuses are different and this one is still evolving. Not that I support any censorship, but their mission statement doesn't discuss the establishment of a baseline of encyclopedic merit. They want it all and consider it to be encyclopedic, whereby the focus of this is to say that not everything is necessarily encyclopedic. It is not a time to merge.--MONGO 10:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Of course the focuses are the same. Did you actually read their statement? They explictly frame their mission statement in terms of defending things that are "none-the-less encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia." Defending things that are encyclopedic from removal is an essential part of defending encyclopedic merit; likewise, it is useless to defend things of encyclopedic merit from removal unless you first understand and stand for some definition of what encyclopedic merit is. Both of the original groups have tried to claim the middle ground of "encyclopedic merit" to defend their position; in doing so, they have decided on the same goal.
Let us be clear for a minute: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for making valient stands for decency or against censorship. Although both those goals are admirable, in the context of Wikipedia all of their abstract aims can be more concretely achieved by jointly forming a project to defend encyclopedic merit.
I will re-instate the merger-proposal notice now. Please do not remove it until there has been at least some serious discussion of this. Aquillion 11:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
NO they haven't decided on the same goal! Again, they want NOTHING to interfere, whereby this project states that in the most egregious of situations, some things do not meet a level of standards that are going to bring Wikipedia the following to be completely regarded as superior to Britannica. What part of this can I explain differently so that you see that they are way off to the left...no rules, no regulations and no standards. "none-the-less" means, that no matter how distasteful or in your face inappropriate an image or subject matter may be, love it or leave it. That is an extreme stance...and has nothing to do with being in the middle. We say, NO, not every single little thing is acceptable...let's face facts, when you registered your username, you accepted right off the bat that there were some rules to play by....so they suggest that anything goes...why not use the word fuck in every sentence, and show things that some people think are "acceptable" like people urinating on each other...as if that needs an image to prove it's possible. They must think every stupid human trick deserves a picture to prove it can be done...does that mean that suicide by cutting your own dork off should also be shown if we can find an image to display it? No, everything doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...not if it wants to be considered a citable source by the majority of universities et al.--MONGO 11:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Where are you getting that view? I went back to their page, and this is what it says: They want to preserve only the items that are none-the-less encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia. Naturally, there is a disagreement over what exactly is "encyclopedic and approprate"; but that is a disagreement that is going to have to be settled sooner or later in any case, and I believe that the best way to settle it is to attempt to reconcile the two views into a single "Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit". Aquillion 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I know, I read it, and I see a distinct difference. Their view is that anything goes...not what is a baseline of merit. In their eyes, anything has merit, no matter how far off the deep end it is. That is an extreme view, not shared by myself or by Jimbo Wales or many of the users that are members here. One user signing up there wrote "(Insert image of autocunnilingus here)". No we say that this isn't acceptable if we are ever going to gain the affections of the academic community. I don't see you as trying to do this in bad faith, but I also don't see why the heck you can't just leave the two projects alone for awhile so they can both mature and evolve. It is either too early or too late to merge...but the time to do so isn't now. They started off being polarized, now they are just plain different.--MONGO 12:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I am puzzled as to where this notion is coming from that the views of the anti censorship project members is that "anything goes". I am at a loss why you persist in trying to antagonize the mebers of the project with your remarks, especially when you take a joke made by Redwolf24 totally out of context. The only difference between the two projects is that in the merit project the members are "holier than thou" about explicit images and in the ant-censorship project the members are "holier than thou" about freedom of expression. Both views are being adhered to rigidly and without much compromise as it stands now. There is no way in the forseeable future that these two kinds of people can work together in a project. Not untill the trollcalling, nazicalling and namedropping on both sides has subsided. In the mean time, both projects consist of member that have nothing but the wellbeing of Wikipedia as their highesy goal. I do agree with you that the best thing is to let the projects be and see what develops. --Lomedae 13:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The two projects approach the same issue from a different angle (and also, both employ similar lists of "votes to watch"). I would think it desirable if they were to engage in joint discussion. Thus I find merging very appropriate. Radiant_>|< 12:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The other project has atually dropped the lists of "votes to watch", so that is no longer a similarity. Also, one minute ago (above) you said "I am not interested in joining this project. I believe "Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit" is oxymoronic..." It seems that the members of this project have a different view. Members are allowed to have views and they should be allowed to have freedom to associate with others who hold similar views, if they so desire. I agree that ultimately people will need to work together to reach consensus, but we can have that happen on the discussion pages for individual articles and (if applicable) on discussion pages related to points of policy. Johntex 16:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this should be revisited after some time. This is too soon to make this type of decision when this project is still finding it's place and focus. Let's give it time. -Visorstuff 16:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I urge we keep separate for now. There is no need to rush into a merger. Let's give both projects time to evolve their focus and then see if they end up being so similar that they would benefit from merging. Johntex 16:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that we have made room for other sets of projects that are similar to each other. For example, we have a different projects for "Fix common mistakes", "Grammar", "Typo", "Wiki Syntax", etc. Yet we do not require them to merge into one big project to fix all gramatical and style problems. Similarly, we have not merged Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Battles or a host of other projects related to ships, airplanes, etc. just because they might be construed to have a similar focus. On the contrary, we let each group of people find their niche and contribute as they feel they are best able. Johntex 16:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I am persuaded by Johntex's comment here. Although there is not necessary any per se conflict between the goals of the two projects as now formulated, they indeed do have a different focus. For the time being at least, I believe these should be left as separate projects. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:59, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • NO MERGER. Can we just close this merger. It's quite obvious that no one in the Wikipedians against Censorship project, myself included, supports this merge. And I'm debating whether it was made in good faith either.Gateman1997 22:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meta: Assume good faith!

Everyone in both Wikiprojects, and who discusses their merger, should back off from the assumption that everyone else is trolling. The merger proposal was made in good faith, is not absurd on its face, and should be discussed for a couple days. So please do not remove the merger proposal tag.

I am, for example, personally currently opposed to the merger. But I remain open-minded enough that I could perhaps be persuaded by a good argument for merger. Please make respectful and serious arguments on the talk page for- or against- merging; hopefully a consensus will emerge in a couple days, and we can either remove the tag or actually merge the projects (depending on the opinions). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:59, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

So far, no one seems to be in favor. Stop telling everyone here what to do. The merger would bring anarchy and solve nothing. The merger tag is absurd on it's face, no proof exists that it was made in good faith...the tag was put on, edit summary "merge time" and then discussion ensued...this type of thing should be brought to discussion first, not after.--MONGO 02:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please read the WP guidelines on merging projects/pages. They are (1) Put up a merge notice; (2) Discuss on talk page; (3) Act on consensus. That's the order, and there's no ambiguity involved. Just because you might wish WP to work very differently doesn't make it your private sandbox. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:30, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
  • Certainly there are some in favor, or the tag wouldn't have been there in the first place. I stated such clearly in the very section where this was discussed. It's very simple - merge was proposed, consensus was opposed, so it's not going to happen. WP:FAITH indeed. Radiant_>|< 08:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is "objectionable"?

I'd like to encourage readers to think more broadly about content that might be undesirable in some contexts, beyond an obsession with pornography. A variety of other images, such as violent ones, can be distinctly disturbing, and even less "work/school safe" than are sexual images. Also, perhaps, some not-exactly-violent, but distrubing, images like medical photographs of, e.g. eye surgery.

Let me give an example, somewhat autobiographical. I did some editing on the article Homosexuality (excellent article, btw). Near the top of that page, there is, in fact, currently a pornographic image—a 480 BCE Greek painting, specifically. It rather explicitly depicts (homosexual) sex. I find that image wholly non-disturbing, and in fact think it's a really aesthetically nice choice for an accompanyment to the intro. If the intro image were something more photographic (i.e. regular recent "gay porn"), I wouldn't be offended, but I would probably recommend using something different as a normal editing matter.

In an earlier version of the page (since removed), there was an image under the "Social attitudes" section of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni being hanged for engaging in homosexual sex in Iran. This was a photograph from a recent news account. I found this photo quite sickening, enough so I had trouble reading the accompanying text. I don't for a moment fail to see the topicality of draconian and homophobic laws, or a recent example of their enforcement, to the page in question. And the photo most certainly meets a SLAPS test. Nonetheless, I think I'm happier that the image is no longer inlined on the Homosexuality page.

If I had a mechanism like PICS that let me switch off viewing violent images, I might sometimes enable that. Of course, I'd demand the option of removing the filter in my browser. Or likewise, if there was a WP user setting like "Do not inline violent images (but provide links)" I might enable that for my account. Again, I would certainly not want to impose such a global standard on all users, but having the option wouldn't be "censorship." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:58, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

[edit] PICS and other content-description systems

I did some analysis of PICS and other content-tagging systems while developing Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging. As far as I can tell, none of the existing systems is appropriate for Wikipedia: ICRA and the other systems that provide a vocabulary either require highly-subjective judgements ("is suitable for young children"), or lump our article on human sexual intercourse in the same category with the goatse.cx website. PICS, as I recall, doesn't provide a vocabulary. --Carnildo 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

With PICS you can roll your own label scheme. I didn't think much of RASCi or the others. In general it is best to have categories that are as descriptive as possible. I would suggest 'Nudity', 'Sexual Intercourse', 'Graphic, unsimulated Sexual Intercourse', 'Paraphillias' as a starting point. Tubgirl and Goatsex are objectively paraphillias. Same for the violence aspect. --Gorgonzilla 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest reading Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging, as most of the issues have been discussed there. Tubgirl and Goatse may clearly be paraphilias, but what about Image:Flogging demo folsom 2004.jpg? Is Sexual Sadism a paraphilia? If you tag it as such, I predict an edit war. Is someone who is wearing nothing but a pair of high-heel shoes nude? What about Image:Flushvul.gif -- is she nude? How about Image:Spreizstange (Bondage) Model Dani.jpg? She's clearly not nude. If Image:Relief1.jpg was a photograph, it would be hardcore pornography. How would you classify it? --Carnildo 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decent image proposal

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Decent image proposal.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick poll on project recommendation

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Quick poll on project recommendations.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Brennemen's refactoring of this page is helpful; I encourage members/readers to hop over to this quick poll.

Some early votes might have slightly misunderstood my intention in the poll questions. When I have a statement like "If an article is X, it should do Y" that is meant as a proposed WP style guideline. Voting "Disagree" to this does not imply "If an article is X, it should not do Y". Rather, "Disagree" just means "There should be no style guideline on this issue." In several cases, members voted "Depends", which really, under my intended question, amounts to "Disagree."

Concretely, in the first example (copied from MONGO's words, as closely as possible with the minor grammatical change):

"If an article is about an overt sex act, no image should be used."

Disagreeing just means that there should be no style guideline about whether an image should be used for such a page. In that case, the decision should be made in the normal editorial process, page-by-page (judged by topicality, illustrativeness, aesthetics, etc). Of course, you are free to vote however you wish. But I thought I'd try to clarify the intent of the questions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:50, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

[edit] Academic objectivity vs industrial propaganda, and offensive material rating system (RFC)

(Moved here from an RFC posted on the Pornography talk page previously. It was considered to belong here instead).

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/offensive material rating system

[edit] Proof of age

This [3] is Jimbo Wales discussing that Wikipedia is not prepared to host proof of age records of individuals who are engaged in sexual acts. If someone wants him to further clarify, then ask him. We can recite all the laws and point fingers this way and that, but unless Wikipedia is prepared to post something along the lines of this: [4] if we intend to continue to show images of Autofellatio and other overt sex acts, then we are in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 (28 CFR Part 75).--MONGO 07:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear: MONGO is not a lawyer. He is not a Florida Lawyer. And specifically, he is not Wikipedia's lawyer. His legal advice is worth exactly as much as you paid for it. (likewise for mine; which is part of why I don't give legal advice). Speaking as a fellow silly non-lawyer, I'd say that 18 USC Sect 2257 just don't say what MONGO wants us to think it does. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:57, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
Then you didn't read Jimbos commentary...cased closed. Images of Autofellatio put this entire operation at risk. The statute reads that imagery of overt sex acts must have a disclaimer...Wikipedia doesn't want to host these disclaimers and or proof of age...end of story.--MONGO 08:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Are you referring to the email in which non-lawyer Jimbo Wales writes "We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States."?! Of course, Jimbo is only of nominal relevance here; WP is a lot bigger project than it's founder (who is really no more than another editor).
I have the sneaking feeling that MONGO really just wants to resurrect on online version of the Comstock commission to replace WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:13, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
As a founder of this enterprise he clearly states in his second answer the concern about not hosting age verification...they are not going to host them...write him if you want clarification.--MONGO 08:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget when you write him to remind him of your comment that he is "really no more than another editor". I doubt his ego will be bruised by that comment, but we have him partially to thank for this Wiki.--MONGO 09:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to ask Jimbo to clarify his comments...what's wrong, afraid of what you'll find out? We don't need lawyers, redirection as above that I'm trying to turn this into an argument of Victorian values, or the Miller test. Furthermore, when users belch that there is some concensus for protecting trolls who register a username and show right off a much more obvious awareness of Wikipedia than any new user, it is apparent that they are clearly in the wrong. When people in an admin level post adolescent commentary that they think an obscene image should be on every page, they are absolutely in violation of WP:POINT. Case closed.--MONGO 20:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty

Let's be honest here. There are, have been, and will be, people that object to the inclusion of certain subjects or images in Wikipedia (or, indeed, anywhere else). However, this is a matter of ethics, preferences, and taste. It is not a matter of US law, nor of suitability of Wikipedia as an academic source. Everybody has the right to their opinion, but the legal or academic arguments used to back those opinion are simply fallacious, and only used to make the opinion seem to have greater status than it actually does. Radiant_>|< 08:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:58, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

[edit] Violating NPOV

I've nominated this article for deletion as it violates Wiki policy. Gibadabmoob 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've de-nominated it. It went through VfD less than a week ago. --Carnildo 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, wait a couple of months... then renominate it.Gateman1997 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Toby

Perhaps ladies and gentlemen here will find this proposal acceptable, if not entirely palatable. I'm posting the same message here, as well as over in the opposite camp. Maybe all parties will find it equally unsatisfactory; that is the nature of compromise. But I hope that most will find it meets our needs. — Xiong熊talk* 04:19, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

That thing will never be implemented...like a V-chip for Wiki...the servers are already working overtime.--MONGO 13:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing People from the project.

Removing people from the project needs to stop. It serves no purpose. There was absolutly no consensus around a removal policy beyond sockpuppets. Hipocrite 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That is the death of the project, but then that was the intent all along, right? --Noitall 00:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
If User:Gibadabmoob isn't a sockpuppet, Hipocrite, then explain why the first edit they do is to try and Vfd this project...doubtful that the person is a "new" user. Removal of a person whose sole purpose is disruption is not a violation of anything. Threatening me that I'll be removed if I remove someone that you claim would in the category of sockpuppet is rather arrogant.--MONGO 00:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
That is the problem here that can not be resolved without an Admin who is truly interested in Wiki (should make no difference whether the support or oppose this project). Hipocrite argues for decisions by "consensus." Since this project is being Wikibombed by sockpuppets and editors who will never consent because they want the project destroyed, then this project is dead until someone with Admin powers controls it. --Noitall 01:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Interesting that no one who the "opposition" claims to be a censor has bothered to either register in the aniticensorship project, or made any obvious effort to obstruct it's right to existence...which this project was mandated by a failure of concensus for deletion in the Vfd.--MONGO 01:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Just fes up, and admit that you're a sock puppet..how exactly does an over whelming majority of delete votes count as a mandate for keep?? *bah* you can't have a mandate to fail to meet 2/3 consensus, that's the kind of thing someone says when they're a strawman, and trying to make someone else look like a moron--172.134.225.13 02:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as the moron part...you've got that covered as plainly evidenced by your vandalism to my userpage [5]--MONGO 02:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Not my fault someone deleted the
 This article or section may contain strawman arguments.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources, or Attributing the arguments to their authors.
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.		 
template, wonder how long ago they did

that--172.134.225.13 02:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Please cease all personal attacks this is getting out of hand.Gateman1997 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A specific argument

  • seeing as how the legal threats are meaningless, it seems the only argument left is the "dirty content keeps wiki from becoming an academically recognized, e-source" argument..

...so, talk about that here...

  • let's start with this: isn't it more likely that the constant political POV pushing, candidate bashing, censorship, counter censorship, and related message board like flame wars, are what keeps it from being reckognized as an encyclopedic source, not the suggestive content?--172.134.225.13 02:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a combination of things. Don't vandalize my userpage again.--MONGO 03:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I think academia and the like will think less of Wikipedia if it self-censors. ~~ N (t/c) 16:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. Please start an anti-censorship project page. This page deals with encyclopedic merit and because you entirely disagree with the objective of this page, you should not be editing here. Thank you for your time. Bye. --Noitall 17:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Um, there's a difference between "encyclopedic merit" (which I support) and unnecessary self-censoring (which I don't), there already is an anti-censorship project, and who are you to say that I shouldn't edit this page? ~~ N (t/c) 18:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship and Vandalism

As it has been described, many editors on this page are vandalizing it by not accepting its mission, inhibiting other editors from participating, preventing consensus as to actions regarding its mission, and attempting to kill the page. Many of those editors have come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. I was asked to set the policy here and this is what I propose:

  1. Membership will be restricted to those accepting its mission. If an editor provides a valid reason that they believe that they can belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship AND the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit pages, such a request will be considered in good faith. All others will be removed to a separate page to carry on their own consensus unrelated to the mission here.
  2. Comments and "consensus" from editors who do not accept the mission will be removed to a separate page.
  3. The standard will be whether an editor accepts the mission of the page. If not, there are many other forums for their discussion.

Taking comments from editors who accept the mission of this project page. --Noitall 17:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why does Noitall (and MONGO) think it is appropriate to remove other users comments whenever they disagree? I think it's probably (nearly) time to renew the VfD, since this can't possibly work while they actively vandalize the project. Restoring: (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

I haven't removed your comments and am still waiting for an answer as to why your membership doesn't violate WP:POINT.--MONGO 18:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

As it has been described, many editors on this page are vandalizing it by not accepting its mission,

i.e. by helping formulate its mission.

...inhibiting other editors from participating, preventing consensus

i.e. by not agreeing with all of Noitall's positions.

...as to actions regarding its mission, and attempting to kill the page. Many of those editors have come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. I was asked to set the policy here and this is what I propose:

  1. Membership will be restricted to those accepting its mission. If an editor provides a valid reason that they believe that they can belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship AND the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit pages, such a request will be considered in good faith. All others will be removed to a separate page to carry on their own consensus unrelated to the mission here.
In other words, this will be the "anti-Wikipedia", in that it rejects WP's base principles of open cooperation.
  1. Comments and "consensus" from editors who do not accept the mission will be removed to a separate page.
In violation of WP policy.
Oppose in the strongest terms possible. Noitall is welcome to setup his/her own website devoted to anti-Wikipedia activity if s/he wishes. But WP should not provide the resources for a group devoted solely to destruction of Wikipedia. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:03, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
I disagree and think it is a good idea. How about you explain exactly what purpose your membership here serves aside from disruption. In what manner do you agree with the aims of developing a standard of encyclopedic merit. Remember, this is only a project, not a policy page, so nothing it does here becomes "law". Since you feel that Noitall is "devoted solely to the destruction of Wikipedia" explain why that is and since he is a founder here and agreed while the decency project was in Vfd when I suggested the name and focus of the project needed to shift away from decency to encyclopedic merit, what gives you the right to suggest that HE is the one to have to remove himself from the project. Since when are you the arbitrator of what goes on here? I see in your efforts nothing but a violation of WP:POINT.--MONGO 18:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I am a member of both projects and don't think they're mutually exclusive. I'm for encyclopedic merit through not including gratuitous obscenity, but against censorship in that I don't think non-gratuitous obscenity should be deleted.
  2. Fine. If this project is going to exclude me, I don't want anything to do with it.
  3. If I'm not mistaken (and someone please tell me whether or not I am), you don't own this page and have no right to delete good-faith comments from it.
"Taking comments from editors who accept the mission of this project page": does this mean you don't want to hear those who don't agree with you?
~~ N (t/c) 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
It was a consensus decision by those who began this page that I delete vandals and those who do not accept the mission as they are preventing others from participating. As for comments, you make several contradictory comments. But you are correct, if you do not accept the project mission, I will be happy to discuss with you any item on another page, but not this one. Thanks. --Noitall 18:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
No, it is overwhelming consensus by members of this project, and of WP as a whole, that deleting other users comments is always wrong.
Above unsigned comment by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
I am confused by your reference to "those who began this page". This is Wikipedia; being the person who started a page or project doesn't give you any special rights over it. In particular, the goal of a Wikiproject, according to Wikipedia:Wikiproject and the original Wikipedia:WikiProject_proposal, is to focus on a specific subject, attract editors with knowledge and interests related to that subject, and allow them to work out the details of how to approach it. The proposal specifically notes that two of the main advantages of a Wikiproject are that they "permit strategic planning and consensual discussion", that they "allow controlled dynamic evolution", and that they can become "a resource for standards and comprehensiveness." That is what is happening here. If you create a Wikiproject centered around judging the encyclopedic merit of sexually explicit imagery and language, focused on determining what should and should not be allowed into Wikipedia under those grounds, it is entirely approprate for it to attract people with views all over the spectrum on that topic; indeed, the final wikiproject will only be effective and meaningful if its standards are created by a consensus from among those viewpoints. A Wikiproject, in other words, is not a place to gather your views on a topic; it's a place to gather people with general interest and expertise on that topic. If you want something under your control that will not have to compromise with other views, then the approprate place to create it is in on your talk page, not here; or better yet off of Wikipedia entirely. Aquillion 19:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that gratuitous obscenity has no reason for being on the Wikipedia. I also agree that ANYONE should be allowed to discuss the issues here, but that if their purpose is disruption then they have no business being MEMBERS. As far as your comment Nickptar, it doesn't seem to me that there is any reason you shouldn't continue on as a member here...if indeed you do feel that there needs to be some baseline of merit for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--MONGO 18:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I bolded the relevant portions. If someone accepts the mission here, then we should assume you are editing in good faith and are not intending disruption. It would not matter what other pages you are on. This is only a procedural proposal to permit others from being Wikibombed and chased off the page and to permit true consensus from those who accept the mission. --Noitall 18:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
All right, I can agree with that. Of course there needs to be some baseline of merit. ~~ N (t/c) 19:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Then, I wholeheartedly support your membership! A baseline is in keeping with comments made by Jimbo Wales as now displayed on the project page.--MONGO 19:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this debate just going around, and around again, in circles? Is there an Admin who is totally uninvolved (there must be at least one!) who can help out resolving this violating wp:point (if it is being violated, we cant agree) here, or: Can the users who have been "tarred" as violators of WP:Point/disruptors/vandals by Mongo/Noitall please give a slightly longer explanation here as to exactly why they wish to be on the project? Preferbly a more detailed reason that saying they want an obscene image on every page. I hope that this just might help to resolve this debacle. It might help to know whos who and why they are here. I dont know what to do after a reason is left, we shall have to wait and see.......Note: Please, this is not an attempt at anything sinister, not trying to prolong the debate, I just want to see if it helps any.

Please sign your name and leave a short paragraph as to your reasons for joining. Dont write any more than your reasons and try to do it in a polite fashion. Thanks for your time. Banes 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You start. If I trust that you've been open and honest with us, I'll follow. Hipocrite 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I actually meant the users who keep getting removed, but I will start all the same. Banes 06:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

MEMBERS:

  • Banes. I joined this project in the beginning merely because I was interested in the project. After I had spoken with one or two of the founding members and got to understand the aims of the project, I found that I agreed with what it was trying to do, which was, in my understanding: Open debate about the Encyclopedic merit and legality of some images on wikipedia.
  • Given you believe the project is about "open debate," why do you want to strike people? Hipocrite 02:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I havnt struck anyone, the above point was just to see if someone could give a good reason for being on the project, it seems it didnt work. Banes 09:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is unwiki and m:instruction creep. You cannot keep people out of your project by definition, so don't bother striking out their names. Note that if people want to distract others from "their mission", it seems to be working as most of the discussion on this page seems to be about the membership roster. Leave the names, they're not doing any harm. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines and Official Policy

For example, WP:POINT is a guideline. Official policies include: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

The former category may have been violated (slightly) by a couple members with humorous membership statments. The latter official policies, are without question repeatedly violated by MONGO and Noitall. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

People have been blocked for violating WP:POINT regardless of it being a guideline. You violated no personal attacks when you wrongfully accused me of sockpuppetry, trolling, and violating 3RR. Your behavior has also beeen sketchy in regards to editing policy, and ownership as well.--MONGO 05:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No, no one has ever been blocked on WP:POINT (and no one ever will be). It's possible that some RfAr against some user once mentioned WP:POINT as a very minor element of some much larger bad behavior. But guidelines are simply not a basis for blocks (unlike all the violated official policies listed above, which would be sufficient basis to block MONGO and Noitall, in principle).
Obviously all the above latest accusations against me are silly nonsense (as were all the other scattered around this page by MONGO). But I'm not going to get drawn further into the childish game of he said/she said. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:43, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
You are so very mistaken about that! I've seen several times this has occurred.--MONGO 07:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If people want to argue semantics, then yes, WP:POINT is a blockable offense (and so, in fact, are several other guidelines - breaking policy can get you instantly blocked regardless of circumstances, but breaking a guideline repeatedly after being warned can still get you blocked). The key is disruption to make a point. Disruption is a blockable offense regardless of whether it was done to make a point or not. This has been upheld by ArbCom rulings, et al. That said, adding your name to a WikiProject's memberlist does not constitute disruption. In other words, you're both kinda wrong, sorry to say. Radiant_>|< 08:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I know this is sort of a quibble, Radiant!, but what you describe isn't actually different from what I wrote. It's not WP:POINT, per se, that gets them blocked, it's breaking a guideline repeatedly after being warned. But yeah, I do have a tendency to state things starkly in order to, ummm, make a point :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:43, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Horsefeathers! If a person adds their name to a project, especially one that has been as dogged as this one has been, and adds commentary that attempts to mock the efforts and the scope of the project, it is disruption...plain and simple...I'm sure if I joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains and told them that I didn't want to see any templates, standardizations or uniformity in their efforts and it was obvious that I was trying to disrupt their good faith efforts, then that too would be a violation of "point". What kind of game are you trying to play here?--MONGO 09:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:POINT, then imagine the following guideline in it's very spirit... "If you disagree with the direction a WikiProject or proposal is headed, do join the project and/or discussion and attempt to reach a compromise; do not nominate the project or proposal for deletion, or fork off a new project to counter it."
  • If you were to suggest to the Mountains project and wanted to change its direction, you would be welcomed and your comments taken into account. If you didn't want them using templates, you'd probably find yourself in the minority. Now what is going on here is that Zoe is very much concerned with encyclopedic merit, and that apparently you and her disagree on what direction to take. So you'd both be welcome in a project working on encyclopedic merit. I haven't seen any good-faith efforts by you yet that she has disrupted. Radiant_>|< 16:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
How do you know what Zoe's opinion is? And do you assume I mean that she is the only obstructionist here? How about when one "member" has a dozen edits to their edit history, the first being to Vfd this project and this is to be construed as a true contributor, not eligible to be removed due to being a sockpuppet? How about when another clearly states that there should be a merit systems for projects...and that is a good faith edit? I'm sorry, you're absolute incorrect when someone posts themselves in as a member making the origanl obtuse statement as was made as the purpose of their membership, that is disruption. As far as your what WP:POINT states, the editor with a dozen edits who tried to Vfd this thing as their very first edit...is in violation....the editors that belong to the anticensorship project (which is supposedly a spinoff of this as a counter agrument) and also members here are DISRUPTING. Don't tell me you suffer from selective reading like Ms. Lulu.--MONGO 21:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what her opinion is, and neither do you, but I'm assuming good WP:FAITH and you are not. A sockpuppet with a dozen edits is an entirely different matter. Radiant_>|< 10:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll assume good faith that her comment that there should be an obscene image on every page, had nothing to do with an attempt to disrupt. Explain why you lock the page and keep this person on as a "member" User:Gibadabmoob contributions and their first edit is to nominate for Vfd this project...nothing suspicious there...--MONGO 14:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Also, notice when Gibadabmoob nominated this for Vfd, another "member" in "good standing" voted: "Speedy keep" wait two weeks and nominate it again. [6]--MONGO 14:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mongo, you seem to spend far more time arguing about whose names may appear on this project's page than you spend working on encyclopedic merit. Zoe may have been making an innocent joke rather than intended disruption (indeed, she's an admin and could have done far worse had she really intended disruption). Stop attacking her.
  • Have you read {{protected}}? It in no way endorses the current version, but simply stops people from edit warring. Radiant_>|< 14:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
You are being an obstructionist and it is plainly obvious! Address the questions and stop redirecting.--MONGO 14:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
You are being an obstructionist. Stop focusing on who is listed on the page and get to work. Hipocrite 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It appears you have been questioned as to being a sockpuppet. I'm looking hard for article creation on your part. I've been working.--MONGO 15:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
There are many other ways to contribute to this encyclopedia beyond writing new articles that no one will ever read. But please, accuse me of being a sockpuppet. It's yet another sign that you aren't focused on the project at hand. Hipocrite 15:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I did not say you were, but I see others have asked if you are...seriously, when you vote and then suggest to rem=nominate in 2 weeks for this project to be deleted, it really is hard for me to see how your efforts are in good faith. I'm sorry, but that edit didn't help me feel that I can take you seriously and I believe that this is all distraction to ensure that the efforts of this project, which have stated that there needs to be a baseline of merit, are in opposition to your true sentiments. "They're trying to delete all the images of nekkid people"...that is totally ridiculous. Aagin: images of overt sex acts....images of overt sex acts. Can you hear me now?--MONGO 15:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, but, so sorry, I don't believe you. Wait 2 weeks and try again I wrote because I feel that an appropriate waiting time after a failed consensus before another VfD is 2 weeks. If I wanted to destroy the project, why would I have put so much time into fixing the front page of it, as opposed to making it worse, exactly? I await your apology. Oh, and please name these socalled "others." Thanks. Hipocrite 15:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
OVERT SEX ACTS! I am OPPOSED to deletion of images of nudity. This is just a frickin project...it's never going to be a policy page! Chill out brother.--MONGO 16:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Godwin's law

I'm not concerned about the gender thing, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd address me more respectfully (and properly) as "Dr. Lulu" :-). On the other thing, the big problem is that someone doesn't have to prove each edit is in good faith. See WP:FAITH. It's a very high burden to prove the contrary, that someone acts in bad faith, and it takes at least an RfC to suggest that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:00, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

It's unlikely I'll refer to you as Dr., Doc, or Phd. I only now looked at your user page and saw that you are a man or at least the stubbled chin would make you a rather unattractive female, so I'm sorry about the Ms. thing...your attitude reminded me of some of the feminazis I've encountered. As I have no proof aside from your claim to having a Phd, I won't be using that title as a form of designation for your rank (and even if proof of such was provided, you still wouldn't be addressed as such by me, sorry). As far as I am concerned, the Phd, means (hopefully) you know a lot about one specific area, which from what I see is philosophy and doesn't in any way make you an authority on the mision of this project. That you deagree with everything that myself or Noitall et al have stated, or at least suffer from selective reading and recitation of commentary, I view all your efforts to be a manner of disruption to the scope of this project...assume my comment has been made in good faith and it is just commentary in cyberspace so attempt to not be so threatened.--MONGO 22:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Language that I have highlighted above serves no purpose in a discussion between human beings. The Nazis killed millions of people with untold brutality and a minimum repsect for human life. I would kindly ask you to clean up your language, sir. Hipocrite 03:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Do Not restructure my comments again. My use of the term was loose and wrong, but your claim that the nazis had minimal respect for human life is wrong...they had zero respect for human life. I will kindly ask you to not take it out of context. --MONGO 04:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, I suppose. But what the heck? Maybe the Jimbo-like beard is just my drag outfit, y'think? In any case, I don't really care if you call me "Ms.", but the reason you should formally call me "Dr." is because I hold a Ph.D (it would be similar if I held an M.D., Ed.D. , or some other degrees; but I don't). Mr. Wales, whom you imagine I "blaspheme" (?!) by so addressing, does not hold a Ph.D. (though he does "hold" an Ab.D. in Finance). Dr. Sanger indeed holds a Ph.D. in the same field as I do. If you actually cared about proof, it probably wouldn't take very many mouse clicks to find it; I leave that as an exercise for the reader. :-).
I suspect I won't be writing "Dr. MONGO" either, but not out of any passive aggressive withholding, but simply because he will not attain such a degree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
That's very special...a legend in your own mind.--MONGO 02:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I came here via WP:RFC. A couple quick points: It is generally frowned upon to remove comments from a talk page. This whole project seems to be contentious. It might be wise to start over. Maurreen (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We did start over. Those that are violating WP:POINT signed on as members while the Vfd was ongoing against the decency project. This project has a different scope and focus...it doesn't utilize templates to tag images and articles, doesn't sponsor censorship and doesn't support anything other than a discussion and attempt to establish (as clearly shown by paraphrased commentary from Wikiemail of Jimbo Wales) some effort to establish a baseline of merit. When someone comes along and breaks up anothers discussion, refactoring every point, it isn't ulikely this will evoke some sort of revert as happened between Noitall and this lulu person. If you read the mission statement and support the comments by Jimbo, then how about you join us!--MONGO 20:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
You are violating WP:AGF every time you accuse me of violating WP:POINT. I'm still with this program because I'm for encyclopedic merit. I contribute to this project by keeping it from drifting back into Wikipedians that hate nekkid peoples. Hipocrite 23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Then act more constructively and cease to revert every edit I make to a project I renamed, dropped templates from and refocused the project. Remember that from my vantage point, most of your behavior has appeared to be obstructionist. This isn't a blog, it's an online encyclopedia...the rules are different. Thanks.--MONGO 05:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No. I have not reverted every edit you make to a project (who created it is wholey irrelevent.) None of my behavior has been obstructionist. This isn't YOUR blog, it's an online encyclopedia....the rules are different. Hipocrite 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More porntalk on the project page.

The page drifts to porn every edit made. This project is not about nekkid people, and as such, I've removed the whole talk about nekkid people from the intro. Hipocrite 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion ins't about naked people...it is about the vision the project partly is directing. Overt sexual imagery may or may not be necessary to assist an article in demonstration, but the fact that Wikipedia isn't prepared to hold proof of age records of such matters is pertinent to the mission of this project...not to mention that we haven't even dicussed how to address such things as referencing usages to make things more encyclopedic and to examine the best way to standardize and create a system of uniformity...things that help to make this endeavour more encyclopedic. Please don't remove those sections without discussing it more. Thanks.--MONGO 05:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Holding age records HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCYCLOPEDIC MERIT. Talking about children's sexuality being illegal in Iran HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCYCLOPEDIC MERIT. Hipocrite 05:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The age records applies to things that have been argued by many as being unencyclopedic or unmerited due to the fact that they represent imagery of sexual activity. The question is, does gratuitous sexual activity either in solitude or with a partner(s) belong here to help demonstrate the article, and even if it does, it cannot be used since Wikipedia is not going to host proof of age records of such individuals appearing in these acts. Essentially, the mission is to ensure that, though we have zero enforcement rights, we, as members, accept that our standards of encyclopedic merit follow this guideline.--MONGO 05:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Also, hipocrite, I didn't put in the part about child porn, Lulu did.--MONGO 06:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
That's correct, I added the quote from the Child pornography article (In some countries textual material describing sexual activities involving children is legally classified as child pornography.). If the remark about age disclosure by models were valid (it's not though), then something much broader would also be valid.
That is, in many jurisdications with "long arm" statutes, having a disclosure would not help WP prevent prosecution (in part because even textual depictions might be prosecuted). In fact, in many jurisdictions, much WP content would violate local law, even if the most puritanical standards suggested by anyone here were to be fully implemented (not just the pix of nekkid folks, also stuff like heresy, disrespectful remarks about local leaders [e.g. King of Thailand], etc). It's sort of a Reductio ad absurdum of the notion that we ought to prohibit autofellatio.jpg, or whatever seems to most stick in puritanical craws this week, on the basis of alleged US laws against it. No matter what we do, we are going to be in violation of the laws of somewhere with WP readers (hence the sense in finding the best hosting jurisdiction, rather than conforming to the accidental Florida location per se). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:36, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Naturally, we are exposed to multiple jurisdictional situations in which Wiki content may be differently scrutinized. There is nothing absurd about setting a standard of encyclopedic merit as defined to some degree by Jimbo Wales's comments. I am under the impression that you feel that anything goes and need you to further clarify your stance on this.--MONGO 07:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I still think it would be easier to move the servers to another country, and perma ban all AOL ips, of course I would be biting my own hand off, with that one, but I'd be willing to sacrifice for the project--172.129.100.71 05:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I agree with your latest edit...the other version isn't needed with the link...and the issue of child porn can be dicussed in the talk pages.--MONGO 06:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Food for thought (epistemology and the structure of authority)

Larry Sanger's (a co-founder of Wikipedia no longer associated with the project) comments may make for further discussion that pertains to our goals of striving for encyclopedic merit.--MONGO 08:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note that Sanger's story is entirely about respect for expert opinion and how it should take precedence over amateur efforts; it has nothing to do with tagging images as "unsuitable". Radiant_>|< 16:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
And I don't completely agree with him either...where did you get the bit about tagging articles from...this project doesn't do that, at least not anymore.--MONGO 21:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, Sanger is mostly wrong. He has a bit of a case of sour grapes about the fact that Wikipedia succeeded while his old Nupedia project did not. Sanger wants to think that the inevitable failure of latter wasn't built in to its "structure of authority", but simply an historical accident. Being, like Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. with a expertise is epistemology, I think Sanger's proposal would be the death knell of WP, not the path to its improvement. Of course, I've been wrong at times too :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:58, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
I was only bringing it to attention of those not familiar with him and because of his commentary about the Wikipedia not being mainstream or acceptable as a source of citation by schools and universitiies. That's all.--MONGO 21:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

There definitely is something absurd about taking one off-hand comment to a mailing list, by one non-lawyer, as if it was "the law of WP." Blah, blah, Jimbo is a great guy and all that. But that one comment may or may not represent his evolving belief, and even if it did, he's just one editor (and probably one board member of the Wikimedia foundation, or something like that, I don't know about the incorporation bylaws). WP isn't a hermeneutic project to unearth the true meaning of the great prophet Jimbo, as MONGO seems to think. He's just a (good) guy, and I'm pretty sure he'd tell you exactly the same thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Lulu, your argument about Jimbo and his statement is noted and you have made it forcefully. It, however, is not the vision of this page. This page is to implement Jimbo's vision for Wiki. --Noitall 17:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No, this page is to implement the consensus of its contributors and members. It is "the anti-Wikipedia" vision to treat Jimbo, or anyone else (like say the first N members who joined), as priviledged epistemic actors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
So, has anyone asked Jimbo to see if we have his vision right? ~~ N (t/c) 18:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I have not, and have no particular interest in doing so. You are welcome to ask him, of course. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:03, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Sorry, I put that question at the wrong indentation level. It's addressed to Noitall. I agree with you that treating Jimbo as God is unwiki, and have no particular desire to talk to Jimbo because I'm just not that into this project. ~~ N (t/c) 18:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Then, in conflict with earlier discussions, why are you a member?--MONGO 21:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I subscribe to this project's stated aim of ensuring a baseline of encyclopedic merit for inclusion of articles and images (no gratuitous obscenity). I was just raising the question of whether what Noitall thinks is Jimbo's position is actually Jimbo's position, as well as stating my opposition to blindly following Jimbo's position. I don't have to agree 100% with you to be here, do I? ~~ N (t/c) 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
You certainly do not have to agree with everything I say. Since earlier challenged to contact Jimbo for clarification, Lulu doesn't want to. I think the link I provided, along with his brief discussion when he voted a "week keep and rename" in the Vfd are somewhat not what Lulu and some want to hear. Oh, no, these people are trying to take away pictures of overt sex acts!!!! They must be stopped...how dare they try and establish a baseline of encyclopedic merit! As you have clearly stated that you agree that in egregious circumstances, the use of imagery is not in keeping with the "vision" Wales et al had when they created this monster I think we agree more than disagree.--MONGO 22:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is deceptive, at the least. It's not "since challenged" that I did not see any relevance in contacted Jimbo. I never imagined any relevance to that whatsoever. Gee: I challenge you, MONGO, to contact Governor Jeb Bush for his opinion on Florida's decency laws (I think someone posted the governor's email even, otherwise, I imagine it's not hard to find)... not that such would be any more relevant, but what the heck, it would give you something to do.
Maybe you'd be better off starting a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject WWJD (What would Jimbo do?). I can't see how you're actually interested in encyclopedic merit, but only in these weird digressions about the "original intent" of Mr. Whales. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:39, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
You expect to be called "Dr." yet blaspheme Jimbo Wales calling him "Mr. Whales"...perhaps it is you that needs to start a new project...perhaps...Wikipedia:Wikiproject Lulu supports disruption. There is nothing weird about Mr. Wales comments and they do act and help to guide us in what the vision he has for Wikipedia is. Jeb Bush isn't directly related with this endeavour.--MONGO 22:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that was a typo... and "blaspheme" is an odd choice of word. Jimbo is not God. AGF, please. ~~ N (t/c) 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I will not be addressing on this page editors who do not accept its mission. It is a waste of time. I refer to my other previous statements on this subject. --Noitall 18:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
What happened with your noisy "withdrawal" from the project in the membership list, btw.? (maybe you should unstrike your name) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:52, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
I was requested to remove vandals and those who do not agree with the mission here, which are about the same thing. Lulu, I am not certain your purpose on here (I can guess) because your views are contrary to every statement made. Do you have any legitimate purpose here. To put it another way, if I went on the page you created, the anti-censorship page, and started saying that Jimbo was wrong, that nipples and every female picture that did not have a veil were inappropriate because many Muslims are offended, and therefore they should be censored, and I tried edits and extensive talk page revisions to achieve those goals, I would be considered disruptive and, if I continued, a vandal. That is the current status of this page. --Noitall 19:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I did not create the anti-censorship page. However, I'm sure that project would welcome your participation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:54, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • Well, (ignoring the hostility here), Sanger does have a point. That doesn't mean he's fully right though. But Wikipedia could do with a bit more sternness regarding trolls and vandals. It's kind of hard to do that, though, but it would help improve encyclopedic merit by reducing the distractions. Radiant_>|< 10:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] withdrawal of membership

Since the page is protected and I can't strike my name out, I'd like to say here that I'm withdrawing my membership, as this project seems to have gone from being about encyclopedic merit to blind Jimbo-worship. Jimbo's a good guy, but "implementing his vision" (and preventing "blasphemy" of him) do not form a worthy Wikiproject and have nothing to do with encyclopedic merit. Furthermore, we don't even know what his vision is - all we have is some old comments from the mailing list.

In fact, I'm not even sure I see a point in an encyclopedic merit project. The community has shown itself to be pretty good on deciding that on a case-by-case basis.

I will stay on this talk page, but have no interest in being very active anymore. Bye.

~~ N (t/c) 14:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The blaspheme was an obvious joke...no one, least of all me, would ever consider him a diety. The "old comments" you mention of Jimbo Wales are dated August 17, 2005...not even two weeks ago. Furthermore, the effort is to utilize his comments as a possible guideline, not necessarily a law, which we would have no power to enforce anyway since this is merely a project page and not a policy page. The community is hounded by trolls and wikistalkers whose sole editorial contributions seem to be to hang around Vfd, Ifd and related areas. Your opinion is certainly respected and I wish you the best of luck.--MONGO 14:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Membership should be revoked...now!

Evidence:


[edit] Technological Solution for Allowing users to select what images they see

I (and others) have suggested at various times that ultimately a technological solution could exist. Images could be tagged with descriptive words such as "simulated violence" "partial nudity" "sexuality". Users would then have the option (probably through browser cookies) of choosing that they are OK with seeing nudity but not sexuality, or whatever their choice is. I recognize that there will still be arguments, (E.g. "what about a picture of two people kissing, does that qualify as sexuality?") but at least it would be an improvement. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting idea, you want to tag every potentially 'suggestive' image with meta content describing it, to allow filtering software to block them? That does seem like a good idea, that is after all what most porn sites do, adding lots of 'adult' terms as meta content, and continually resubmitting to google, after all this way, wiki will come up first every time some 13 year old googles "tities" or "adult content", certianly, what wiki doesn't have nearly enough of, is horney 13 year old vandals, and this plan seems like a good way to attract them, via google, win win scenario all around [/sarcasm], frankly I don't agree with your wiki club at all, and wouldn't mind seeing you guys blamed for this sort of thing, but seriously now, we don't need anymore vandals--205.188.117.69 22:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I paste here some comments that came into the Help desk which is relevant to this discussion: [7]
"Is it possible to sanitise content within Wikipedia for profane language, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt , for use within a Primary school. We would like to use this resource as its probably more complete then any encyclopedia we currently have access to, but we need to make sure that things that parents might object to cannot be viewed easly. Thanks, John Bradshaw"
  • He was basically pointed in the direction of filtering software - but it was pointed out that filtering software can't interpret images. He was also told he could mirror Wikipedia and remove objectionable content itself (true, but a ton of work, and loses the ongoing additions to the project).
  • Then, apparently still John Bradshaw but now with a username said:
"...is it possible to suggest to the 'powers that be' some sort of Family Filter similar to google, where you actively have to click off or view if someone considers this to be unsafe material. Similar to the 'This content is controversial' options that you can have on entries into the encyclopedia? Machtzu 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"
  • I would like to reiterate my support for such a technological solution. This would allow the user to have some control over the encyclopedic nature of their experience here. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to remind you of an Official Policy of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors What you are proposing is a system to enforce censorship over Wikipedia. This is only the beginning. The next step would be to introduce several filters that seperate Wikipedia into non-objectionable chunks. For example shocking, unchristian, anti-french, maybe offensive to minorities and a not politicallly correct filter. That would render Wikipedia useless and POV. While I think that you mean it well, I am also afraid of the abuse of such a system. Sanitization is an euphemism for censorship. Wikipedia is already censored to a certain extent and that shouldn't be extended to a 2-class Wikipedia. --Leopard 15:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

      • I thank you for reminding me of the policy, and I respect your views on this. However, I the common meaning of "Censorship" does not include people using their own free will to avoid things they find personally objectionable. You may as well call the removal of POV material censorship, or the deletion of commerical link-spam. Johntex\talk 20:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of history there is a mechanism built into Web browsers to do this exact functionj PICS. Now PICS is a censorship scheme, the WG excluded my name from the credits because I insisted on calling it that, even though I invented the 'anyone can design their own censorship scheme' aspect of it, the use of a URI to indicate the censorship scheme in use. The point about PICS was that at the time there was a plot from the 'Christian' Coalition and some people claiming to be feminists (but whome Simmone de Beauvoir would have no time for) to first create the censorship scheme then divy up control of the censorship board. Once everyone could chose their posion it became clear there would be no board and everything fell apart. Did I mention that I don't think much of censorship?

PICS could be made to work, probably should be made to work. The fact is though that it can only work in the absence of coertion. As soon as there is coertion everything falls apart, if the result of labelling material hard core porn is that it gets blocked nobody will label. If however there is no coertion every pornographer wants to label their porn XXXXX since nobody wants X or XX. --Gorgonzilla 02:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected membership page

So that editing on the main project page can resume, I've moved the membership list to its own page. This project has gone through a trememdous amount of revision and controversy in the past few weeks. The end result is that there are participants in the debate taking place on this and related pages concerned both about unwanted exposure to indecent images and text, and about censorship. There are a number of impolite remarks on the existing membership roster, some of which are barbs related to the debate over the formation of this project. There are also a number of resignations.

I was tempted simply to flush the whole thing, or to make it a straight list and remove comments. But any such attempt to restore harmony here would be somewhat heavy-handed, and would somewhat ironically be open to accusations of censorship. Something needs to be done, if only to reaffirm what standards of behavior you expect of people editing the list.

Traditionally, WikiProjects have been rather self-selecting, so I would assume that unless there's a consensus here to establish a membership eligibility requirements, anyone is allowed to add themselves to the project, and no one is allowed to add or remove anyone but themselves. When the membership list is unprotected, I propose a note to that effect be added to it.

As for whether to re-publish the membership list without comments, or to start over with a new list on the main page please take this opportunity to comment on whether or not this would be a good idea. Sooner or later (after people will have had time to cool down), an admin is going to come along and by default just unprotect the list, so it becomes usable again. -- Beland 03:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Please be nice. -- Beland 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many words of Miller

User:AxelBoldt has for some reason I cannot determine reinserted a few extra words from Miller into the project description. Specifically, the phrase "specific sexual conduct". I tried to get a clarification from him on his talk page, and thought we had got closer. But apparently not, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why he is sticking that in. Does anyone else have either insight into why he is inserting it, or an opinion on whether the extra words should be included?

Below is my most recent comment on his talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:06, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

[edit] Still not much closer

I'm still failing to see any point in your change. I really want to think you're not simply being dissiumulative, but it's harder to find another explanation now.

I had quoted a brief extract from the Miller test. You insert a slightly longer extract from the Miller test. Neither one of them is anything close to the full Miller description. In my opinion, the extra part you insert is not relevant to the Wikiproject in question, which is why I wish to omit it. If your edit comments had stated "the certain sexual conduct" part should be the core of this Wikiproject, I would understand your edits; I wouldn't necessarily agree with the goal, but it would make sense conceptually.

The actual Miller test includes (take a look at the opinion at [8]):

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
AND
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);
AND
Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In other words, there are numerous aspects of Miller that your slightly expanded excerpt still omits, e.g.:

  1. Average person
  2. applying contemporary adult community standards
  3. appeals to the prurient interest
  4. parenthetical definition of prurient interest
  5. depicts or describes
  6. in patently offensive way
  7. "sexual conduct" includes "excretory functions", "lewd exhibition of the genitals", "sado-masochistic sexual abuse. (none, IMO, normally considered as "specified sexual conduct).
  8. A reasonable person would find [lack of SLAPS]

So clearly what you characterize is not Miller itself, but a slightly larger quasi-Miller.

But, of course, as I have tried so many times to state, this Wikiproject is not a court case, and we are not lawyers. And it is not Miller that is being presented, but "those aspects of Miller that may be illustrative."

Is it honestly just that you like to stick in the phrase "sexual conduct"?! It obviously has nothing to do with your edit comment that "mischaracterization of Miller is not acceptable", since your characterization is probably slightly farther from a good characterization of Miller than is the shorter version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:55, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I think the clear point that Axel makes on his talk page is that given the three other parts of the Miller test, to reference it, and to not include the bits that make it CLEARLY not applicable to Wikipedia ("taken as a whole appeals appeals to the prurient interest,") makes it reasonable to assume that this project is afraid we run afoul of Miller. I have wanted to delete the reference to Miller in the past (it's bad law, and worse for use in an encyclopedia), and I think this further shows why. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree Miller is bad law, but let's leave that to the side. The part I think is worth mentioning in this project is the SLAPS test. That's all I care about (and the vast majority of WP clearly passes it, even some corners that some deletionists would want gone). Can you think of a way to include the idea of SLAPS while minimizing any appearance of relying on or interpreting Miller (which is clearly outside our scope or competence). I kinda think it's just intellectually honest not mention the inspiration in passing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:58, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

[edit] Value of this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship

Although I admit having a few good laughs when reading the posts of a few fighting members, it is certain that both this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship have merit, since they actually document the very intimate details of the debate at hand.

Although I do not think a merge should happen, it is great for people of each party to be able to read and understand the opinions of eachother. The delicate nature of the debate shows, as well as the emotions it can raise. And, I can see links to technologic and other types of propositions...

This naturally merged as a result of free speech and international cooperation, and reviewing both articles from a bird's view, I think I'm willing to say Bravo to the wiki spirit as a whole :) --66.11.179.30 10:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Ugh, I've been archiving and sorting RfM for a while now. Unfortunately no one but a timestamp on the mediation for this project. Is mediation still desired? Is this project even running still? Please answer on my talk page, and if mediation is what you want, I'll assign someone. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh...

This project goes against the very nature of Wikipedia. It eats at the spirit of the site with every edit it makes. I would suggest that opponents of this project monitor the edits made by its members very closely. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-7 02:32

Also, why is it necessary for a content host to self-censor itself to its entire audience?? Those who want to be censored should take responsibility into their own hands to provide their own personal forms of censorship, many of which have been available (even for free) for quite some time. This prevents unnecessary pains for the rest of us who aren't as easily filled with personal shame, and doesn't lead us down any slippery slopes. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-7 02:38

[edit] Are you kidding me?

Do Not Remove Any Names From The List Ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

Looks like were AfD again.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there some kind of law which says you cannont nominate the same project multiple times? Banes 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
No. You just can't renominate quickly, but the old VFD was months ago. This AFD is for a new reason... inactivity.Gateman1997 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why are those....

Why are those against censorship active, but this group isn't? There's something "fishy goin' on" around here! Now someone tell me the meaning of POV! Эйрон Кинни 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? A good guess would be that this project has "died" due to lack of support. Banes 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


POV = Point of View. Beyond that Good question!Roadhockey 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four letter words

You are mostly above me here, so this should be a simple question for those few of you still monitoring this page. Occasionally, someone will use a four letter word (some are longer!  :) and be quoted in the press. While Wikipedia may not be censored, the press often is. So when quoting this publicized remark, are editors 1) allowed, 2) required or 3) disallowed from emending the edited remark in the paper (which is used as a reference). For example, if I quote Rhett as saying that he (frankly) doesn't give a d***, must I emend this to read "damn?" Or am I merely allowed to do that? Or must I use the exact quote from the paper (which contains asterisks)? Student7 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)