Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-22/News and notes

Discuss this story

The link to the "teaser" either is broken or has been removed. The link to the discussion includes a number of pictures of, well, vulvas, so I assume one of them was the contentious image, but my German is almost non-existent. Matt Deres (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"teaser", "teaser" via gtranslate. –Whitehorse1 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very... attention-getting. Matt Deres (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link [1] is still working for me. Because it happens to be on the HTTPS server, some browsers might ask you if you want to display insecure content, if one says no, images are not displayed. Or the problem might be related to today's DNS outage.

The contentious image is File:Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg. (Actually, I'm discovering the real scandal only now: There is a typo in the file name - it's spelled perineum!)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, while the image itself doesn't bother me at all, I think calling it a "teaser image" is somewhat unfortunate. :-) --Danger (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaser? Teaser? This is a SCANDAL! Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the German community stood up to Jimbo on this. While we respect him, his views on such an issue should not govern.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though, it has to be said, Jimbo acted with a very level head - if he had wanted to govern the issue, he could have just removed the 'teaser' himself. Instead, he went through the correct process, putting his personal opinion forward without threat, pomp or circumstance, for people to take into consideration on its own merits. Of course, being who he is, his opinion will have more sway than others', but it is not a diktat. iPatrickQuinn ^(Talk) 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a photographer, I'd say that the picture is very well done. If it weren't for it's contentiousness, I'd consider nominating it as a 'best of' image. Darkonc (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, you know, I find that I seem to be standing on Jimbo's side whenever I read the signpost. I mean, last time with wikinews I agreed with him, and this time too. You know, the pic really shouldn't be displayed, even on de pedia, since it can stir up a bit too much of controversy. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censor ship is only bad if you disagree with the content being censored it would seem. "Jimmy Wales praised Google's recent decision to stop censoring search results in China" vs "Jimbo Wales commented "I'm astonished [the image] is there, and not in a good way" and shortly afterwards asked German Wikipedians to remove it:". Just an observation Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... this is absolutely nothing like Google's censorship of search results in China. That was about whether people should be prevented from accessing information; this is an editorial decision whether or not to use a picture of a sexual organ on the main page of a widely used encyclopaedia. They have nothing in common, and I for one agree with Jimbo's position on both counts. Robofish (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The PRC censorship, at least according to the article here, blocks & bans for 'sexually suggestive' material plus censors content they hold is 'obscenity' or 'pornography' – with removal last summer of all images on Wikimedia pages by certain providers, not just material critical of the government. –Whitehorse1 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from Germany: The sparse media coverage should give a good impression on how the things are seen here. In the US and the UK the connection between nudity and sex is close. In Germany this connection is not always given. The Freikörperkultur movement is well established and by seeing a nude person at a beach most people will not think that this person will only be there to be involved in some morally questionable action. I remember seeing topless girls in soap commercials in the 1980s repeating every now and than for several years, and there was no media reaction at all. The famous Nipple-gate was mostly viewed as a strange expression of double moral standard of a nation with the largest pornography industry in the world. I talked to a few people about it and most of them did not care, but were amused that Jimbo Wales tried to step in. I liked best the comment of a women writing that 50% have what the article is written others have already seen something similar and the rest is discussing it at that talk page.--Stone (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the decision to put that image on the main page of an encyclopaedia was extremely bad taste. Yes we have a responsibility to provide neutral, uncensored information and I agree that. However, we should not go out of our way to display graphic images like that in places where people would not expect it nor want it. I’m sure there are many people thinking to themselves "Think of the children or the people at work" and I have to agree with that, how many kids would have opened Wikipedia to do their work just to be repulsed by that? If this kind of stupidity becomes commonplace, I foresee the WMF projects being blacklisted by the very educational institutions that use it on a day to day basis. Yes, we are an encyclopaedia, but we are also a top 10 website. If Goatse.cx became featured would you put an image of it on the main page in the name of "anti-censorship"? I doubt it, hence, on the same principal moral restraint must be exercised when choosing main page images. Good on Jimbo for pointing out the obvious problems with that image and to all those complaining about Jimbo voicing his opinion, he is well entitled to it, If you dont want him getting involved in anything, start acting mature and he wont have to. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]