- nsaP
- May 4, 2004
-
alright?
|
I was curious if the talk page for the Wikipedia main page was as full of arguments and bullshit as the CP one is.
What I didn't expect at wikipedia was a mix of this thread and the recent reddit anti-censorship goons. Long story short, apparently a while ago the feature article on the main page was for the first episode of South Park, "Cartman gets an anal probe". Some people left messages suggesting that might not be the best choice for a featured article what with the all the kids that might go to the main page of wikipedia...and brings libertarians with a persecution complex to the surface.
Don't read all of this, but it is worth skimming for some awful analogies and arguments, and above all people completely missing the point. I've actually cut the discussion more than half as it exceeded the max characters for a post.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
quote:Bad choice of featured article
The choice of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" as Today's Featured Article seems gratuitous. I think it was a bad decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.88 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why? Because its subject matter offends you? That's irrelevant to our criteria. —David Levy 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And you think this one set of criteria has reached a state of perfection because ...? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made no such claim. You're welcome to propose revisions. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's just unnecessary. We put something gratuitously unsuitable for family consumption in big letters on Wikipedia's main page just because we can? Not clever. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Your use of this website is at your sole risk.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for missing the point. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The en. Wikipedia boast millions of articles and yet there's nowhere to go for a lead story other than "anal probe"? I don't see a page-wide banner with Jimmy's picture at the top stating your risk comment. Invoke the word "censored" to give it a Hitler hedge - nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It also means that nothing stops us. Like I said below this is an adult website.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, think of the most offensive or "adult" Wikipedia articles that you can. I'm sure I don't need to spell out some candidates for you. Would you be happy to see all of those highlighted on the main page? 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken. We only have 3,465 featured articles of which at a complete guess only about half are eligble for the main page (the other half have already been on the main page). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I just checked Wikipedia's core values. Suitable for family consumption wasn't there. Could you point to the Wikipedia policy, guideline, or official statement where suitability for family consumption is included. Because I can't find it... --Jayron32 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That is no justification. I would not reply to you with a stream of profanities just to assert my freedom of speech -- just because I can. Sensible judgement must be applied. 86.176.214.88 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That's something else, called civility, which is currently being debated about in the editor community. However, articles are not censored. If we can't document a topic without bad words, we have to use the bad words, plain and simple.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not arguing against the existence of the article, or saying that Wikipedia's article space should be censored for bad words where they are necessary to explain the subject matter. I am saying that the decision to highlight this article -- to give it such prominence -- was a bad idea, in my opinion. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it's just how we remark at the professional-level writing we can make. This site's intended audience is mainly for adults. See Wikipedia:Guidance for parents.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, permitting that article to exist on Wikipedia isn't the same as sticking it up on the front page. Marlith (Talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Where should we draw the line? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do thinking people need others to draw the line for them?
Here is a criterion for you: "What would Jimbo do?"
Let's set up a scenario:
It is fund raising time.
Your picture is at the top of the Wikipedia main page.
You are making an appeal for people to contribute.
You are trying to make the case that Wikipedia is worth funding because it allows knowledgeable people to share their knowledge with the world. For example, here is a feature article to showcase the kinds of things editors spend their time on to share with the world.
One of your volunteers decides it is time to get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty appearing immediately below your photo and your appeal on the Wikipedia main page.
Question: Is the fund raising effort helped or hindered by the bit of naughtiness on the main page? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above relies on the premise that the TFA selection was based upon a desire to "get in everyone's face with something just a little naughty". Apart from that, you apparently wonder, what possible motive could there have been to showcase an article that you find objectionable?! —David Levy 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title? Do you think Google pays no attention to what might offend their advertisers? Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash. Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.
Like Google, what one can find in going beyond the home page in Wikipedia might make a sailor blush. But that isn't the point here. If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of motive, all other things being equal: do you think fund raising efforts were hindered or helped by featuring an article with the words "anal probe" in the title?
I don't know whether the article's appearance as TFA led to a net loss of contributions (due to people taking offense) or a net gain (due to people appreciating Wikipedia's comprehensive, uncensored nature). And frankly, I don't particularly care. I disagree with the premise that "What will bring in the most money?" is the appropriate question to ask when determining Wikipedia's content.
Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization, but it still needs cash.
And it receives it. We have no funding shortage.
Saying "F you if you don't like it" to potential donors visiting the main page may not be helpful.
We've done nothing of the sort. Certainly, we display content that some people dislike. This isn't remotely the same thing as "saying F you" to them.
If, after eleven years of operation, the best face Wikipedia can put forward is an article with the words "anal probe" in the title, it would seem to have a systemic problem.
I don't follow. What's wrong with the article? What title should it have? Why can't a writeup about a controversial work of fiction be among Wikipedia's best? —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The intended purpose of such hypothetical behavior would be to insult/offend. Are you suggesting that this is the motive behind the selection of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article?
Please define "sensible judgement". Some readers might be offended by articles about religious/non-religious beliefs other than their own (e.g. Intelligent design or Evolution, both of which are featured articles). Should those articles not have appeared on the main page? Should we institute a main page ban on anything that might offend someone, or just the articles that you deem objectionable? —David Levy 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
We use common sense. You're not going to lead me down that well-trodden and fruitless "anything might be offensive to someone" road, I'm afraid. At some point someone makes a decision, and at the point that person saw "anal probe", some mechanism should have kicked in to say, "nah, no need to put that on the main page". 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, Wikipedia hosts a variety of material that would not be suitable for certain demographics or could otherwise cause controversy. And of course, what could be deemed "inappropriate" varies massively from person to person. But how can we define this standard? To a parent, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is no more suitable for the main page than History of Erotic Art, Human Centipede, or Vulva (which was featured on the main page of the German Wikipedia some time ago, if I remember correctly). To a deeply Christian person, featuring Scientology or Same-sex marriage would likely elicit disgust. Bloody Sunday or Gaza strip would be equally controversial for political reasons if they were featured on the main page. Even Missingno and Bulbasaur had their share of controversy.
In summation, it is understandable that to the parent of a young child, seeing this article on the front page is most likely less than desirable. But to anyone over the age of 14 (a random pick, please don't quibble over it) who is not in that situation, there is no reason why such an article should not be featured; it is after all just a television episode, and I would hazard a guess that the most unseemingly aspect of the article is the episode title. This is the reason why Wikipedia is not censored; what is controversial to one person doesn't elicit even the thought of that in another. We cannot police what people have access to. Doing so is not our responsibility. Taking care of what a child has access to online falls first and foremost to the parent. As to what a parent should say to a child if they are asked about today's featured article? I'd suggest a simple "it's about a TV show for grownups" would suffice. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I cited non-hypothetical examples. The concepts of evolution and intelligent design are far more controversial than the aforementioned cartoon episode is. Should they have appeared on the main page? Why or why not? (Others have cited numerous other examples.)
You evidently find a particular word more bothersome than you find those subjects, but you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't objectionable. Neither is Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The cartoon episode title is (mildly) offensive in a peurile and pointless way. I'm afraid I do not see any connection with any of the lofty subjects you mention. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Those articles' subjects are highly controversial. Their prominent display is likely to offend many people. Your description of the cartoon episode's title as "(mildly) offensive in a [puerile] and pointless way" doesn't bolster your argument; it increases my curiosity as to why you're complaining about it and dismissing my question about subjects that generate massive societal controversy. —David Levy 03:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am equally curious as to why you think objections to the prominence of a schoolboy joke about body parts has anything to do with questions about religion etc. 86.179.113.220 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On what basis do you object to the decision to display Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as today's featured article? Its likelihood to offend, or something else? —David Levy 03:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Children using Wikipedia
My seven-year old (who uses this web site for school) just asked me about this. Thanks Wikipedia brain trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.29.9 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of parent lets their seven-year-old child surf Wikipedia, which hosts most decidedly adult content throughout. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On what planet do you live?
http://www.ieminc.org/handbook/curriculum/Firstsecgrwebsites.htm
Third item on the list: Kindergarten, First, & Second Grade - Free Educational Website Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - Wikipedia offers free encyclopedia with close to 1.5 million articles. - Ac44ck (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a problem with the list, not Wikipedia. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I do sympathise that this leaves you with a rather uncomfortable discussion to have with the young one, but if we turn this perfectly good article down simply on the basis that it might make some people somewhat uncomfortable, where does that end? Many of our articles about painters contain nudes. Many of the articles about religion will offend someone. So it is about AIDS, about Palastine, about Mohammed, the King of Thailand, the Indian border, global warming, (London)Derry, or evolution. Featured articles are the best of Wikipedia, not the blandest. We never set out to offend, but if we pulled back every time someone might feel uncomfortable or think the content wasn't suitable for their kids, their wife, or their servants, we'd compromise or most basic standard, that of neutrality. We have a (fairly) objective standard for where lies the quality threshold for a Featured Article, and if an article meets that it gets promoted. And FAs are eligible for the front page. Once we let someone decide on their own subjective criteria which articles to reject (from this most public, most important, position) we've subtly jaundiced the neutral position we claim to have. If you discovered we had super-high quality content that we were scared to publicise, wouldn't that offend you too? 91.125.80.151 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've yet gotten an answer to my question: what responsible parent would let their seven-year-old browse Wikipedia? It hosts serious adult content; why on earth would a parent who lets a very young child browse this site have the audacity to come here and complain about a cartoon? See Fisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a borked question. "Browsing Wikipedia" and "surfing to the Wikipedia home page" are entirely different things. Why would a responsible parent allow browsing to the Wikipedia home page? For the same reason they allow browsing to the Google home page. Google contains links to things that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What a silly rhetorical device. Do you murder people? If not, why not? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Because people are generally nice and huggable creatures. They're just misunderstood. Some of my best friends are people. 718smiley.svg-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But would you want your daughter to marry one? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You call the analogy silly in a transparent attempt to discredit that which exposes the hypocrisy of your position. Your question about murder is irrelevant. Murder isn't merely offending sensibilities, it is the destruction of life itself.
Two situations:
The editor is anonymous and can hide behind a policy which prohibits censoring to offend the sensibilities of millions of people, then declare: "F them if they don't like it!"
The same person is in an elevator with others. They can hold a fart until they exit the elevator, or they can let fly with full audio while others are confined in the elevator with them. Will that same person let fly and say "F you if you don't like it!"?
Isn't the issue about offending sensibilities in both cases? Everyone farts. Why should this avant-garde editor refrain from farting in an elevator? Don't they believe in freedom of action? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors invested a great deal of time and effort in the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe article, thereby improving the encyclopedia. The community recognized their contributions by promoting the article to "featured" status.
You disapprove of the article's subject, so you denigrate these accomplishments by comparing the TFA selection with the act of deliberately passing gas in a crowded elevator out of spite (as though the motive was to derive juvenile satisfaction by upsetting people with the word "anal").
You might want to reconsider who's being disrespectful here. —David Levy 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."
Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?
Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?
Do you think that might close a pocket book or two? Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde? Some have the opinion that those who want to be avant-garde should do it on their own dime.
I am not saying the article should not exist. I just think it wasn't a wise choice for a FA. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's get the terminology right. These are FAs. FAs are chosen here (any article that meets our notability requirements is eligible to be an FA. FAs are requested for the mainpage here. If they run on the mainpage, they are referred to as TFAs (Today's Featured Aticle), not just FAs.
Next, the person with gas and his/her fellow passengers may depend on the elevator-- they may be unable to avoid it. Nobody has to come to Wikipedia, and no parent should have any seven-year-old surfing anywhere on the Internet that is an adult-content site. Anyone who ever said Wikipedia is a child-friendly site hasn't been, for example, here or here or here or here. Any (lower or middle) school that doesn't have Wikipedia behind a firewall should be taken to task by the parents, and any parent who objects to Cartman shouldn't be letting their children on the internet unsupervised. Unlike an elevator upon which people may depend, the child does not have to come here in order to get to work, to get to school, to get to his apartment, etc. Invalid analogy. Relative to the adult content hosted on this site, exactly what is your objection to Cartman (what specific words there, I'm really curious to know)? Do you think children of all ages don't joke about things coming out of people's arses? If you don't like the adult content on Wikipedia, then challenge all of Wikipedia, or challenge the school that lets children surf adult sites, or challenge the parents who don't supervise their children on the Internet. Or challenge the TV network that runs Southpark. But this is not a TFA problem; anyone who comes to Wikipedia should expect to find content much more "offensive to the delicate and sensitive" than Cartman.
Further, the Cartman article was written by User:Awadewit, an editor who has over 30 FAs and is a professor with a PhD in literature, so why don't we stop with the 'avant-garde', 'pop culture', 'teenage' business, since she's a serious writer on serious topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive. And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.
This section started with a demand for an answer to your question. I provided one. You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of TMI. My answer is not based on the meme "Wikipedia is not censored" (I've little use for that meme-- it would be more useful to simply acknowledge that "Wikipedia contains adult-only content"). My answer is based on the fact that Wikipedia has much more adult-only content than you'll find just about anywhere short of a sex toy shop in The Village, Cartman is not such content (you haven't answered exactly what you think is wrong with it), and if you are subscribing to lists that tell you Wikipedia is a child-friendly site, then you need to go educate them. It's not. If you allow your child to come here, s/he is a few clicks away from adult content. Deal with the facts, not some list some misguided school gave you. The school my children went to rightfully did not allow youngsters on sites like Wikpedia. They did allow them on many sites where they could read about SouthPark episodes (likely not written as well as our version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Strange that someone who posts links to articles about fisting invokes a TMI threshold when asked: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? And then is given a real-world example to describe why they would or would not intentionally offend in that situation. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The question about farting on an elevator addresses the claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive.
We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.
And the position that even if it is offensive, we'll do it anyway because Wikipedia isn't censored.
...which you apparently interpret to mean "LET'S TRY TO OFFEND PEOPLE! IT'S FUN!".
Some people might be offended by the term "anal probe". Others might be offended by the term "anal cancer". Others might be offended by articles about evolution, intelligent design, Christianity, Islam, atheism, homosexuality, transgenderism, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and countless other topics. We can't realistically hope to filter everything "objectionable" from the main page.
You haven't provided an answer to my question: Why do you think the likelihood of offending is not a reason to refrain from an action? Do you fart in elevators? If not, why not?
You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.
Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.
You're clinging to an analogy in which the act causing offense is committed for that purpose (with nothing else accomplished in the process). If you refuse to believe that we aren't setting out to offend people, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
There is no mention of intent in the question. One simply has the choice to fart in the elevator or to wait until they exit the elevator. Why should anyone inconvenience themselves to wait until they exit the elevator, if not to avoid offending the fellow passengers? Why should they give any more thought to the possibility of offending their fellow passengers in an elevator than they would to the possibility of offending people who surf to the main page of Wikipedia? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Which evades the point.
Your "point" is a straw man. No one is claiming to be unaware of the offense that's caused.
The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.
I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content." We know that it offends some people. That isn't our motive for placing it there (contrary to your apparent belief), but we're well aware that this occurs.
There is no mention of intent in the question.
You described a hypothetical scenario in which someone must choose between passing gas in a crowded elevator or waiting until the ride has ended (presumably without suffering any serious consequences). You elaborated that the first option includes exclaiming "F you if you don't like it!", thereby deliberately insulting fellow passengers.
This is not a valid analogy. You're complaining about material displayed for the purpose of showcasing a high-quality article and encouraging further improvements to the encyclopedia. There's no dispute that it offended some people, but that was neither the reason for its appearance nor the only effect. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the tone as "we can't possibly discern what might be offensive, so we shouldn't even try to have such a criterion in selecting a FA."
This section contains a great deal of discussion about content that people find objectionable. Setting aside the broad statement that anything can offend someone, numerous specific examples have been provided. Would you care to comment on them?
Wouldn't you agree that most people would be offended by a fellow passenger in an elevator farting without any inhibition or apology?
Yes, I would. I reject your assertion that this is analogous to yesterday's featured article selection.
Why can we discern what is offensive in an elevator, but not have any clue that some number of potential monetary contributors to Wikipedia might visit the main page of the eighth most popular portal on the web (http://webtrends.about.com/od/webportals/a/topten_portals.htm) and be offended an ill-considered selection for the feature article?
We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.
Do you think that might close a pocket book or two?
I have no doubt that it does. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.
Or is Wikipedia funded only by the avant-garde?
It's funded by people who evidently don't object to our current practices strongly enough to refrain from donating. And it's funded quite well, I might add. —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We know perfectly well that some visitors to the main page (and other parts of the site) will find some of its content objectionable. Your view that this renders it "ill-considered" is inconsistent with policy.
This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can. That seems extreme to me. Who made Wikipedia policy the arbiter of what is prudent? Everything that is allowed is not necessarily prudent.
I have no doubt that it [closes some pocket books]. I also have no doubt that this approach opens pocket books. I don't know which occurs more often, and I don't particularly care. Perhaps we could draw more contributions by presenting Wikipedia as "family-friendly", but I don't believe that misleading the public is an appropriate means of soliciting money.
Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues. Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so? Why is Wikipedia exempt from being a good netizen? How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like we should check our brains at the door and do anything not prohibited by the letter of Wikipedia policy, simply because we can.
No. Like most of Wikipedia's rules, the policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. We've used our brains to formulate and document decisions shaping the project, including one to not suppress material on the basis that it offends people.
Contrary to your continual claims, this doesn't mean that we seek to offend people "because we can" and enjoy "[getting] in everyone's face with something just a little naughty".
Presenting all of Wikipedia as "family-friendly" and ambushing visitors on the main page are different issues.
Please specify which content must be excluded from the main page to avoid "ambushing visitors". Obviously, Tuesday's TFA selection fits your definition. What else does? Numerous other subjects commonly regarded as "objectionable" have been cited as examples.
Note the Google does not ambush visitors to their home page. Why do you think Google refrains from doing so?
Are you referring to https://www.google.com If so, does that strike you as similar to our main page?
How many people hang naughty messages on their front doors? Free speech allows it. Why not do it? It wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding giving offence to others and being perceived as unmannered, would it?
That's yet another analogy based on the premise that we're showcasing content because we enjoy getting away with being "naughty" and offensive. —David Levy 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, First let's examine your goofy analogy.
1) If I knew that the majority of Elevator riders found the smell of farts enjoyable and/or educational...
2) If I there was a long-standing policy that riders should fart in elevators (because of #1)...
3) If It was well known that riders regularly farted in elevators (because of #2)...
4) If riders who did not enjoy the smell of farts were entirely free to ride other elevators with other policies...
... then yes. Yes I would.
Perhaps this illustrates why I thought your analogy was goofy?
Perhaps a better analogy is this : Would you smoke in your building's designated smoking area? Even if occasional non-smokers decided to hang out there for no compulsory reason?
However, like all analogies, even that "better" analogy has flaws. We could go on forever posing analogies back and forth. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You're letting your child browse the web unsupervised, and you're surprised and upset that he learned about a massively popular pop-culture television show that runs on basic cable?
That doesn't make sense at all, and frankly isn't entirely believable.
If true, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Most articles are less than a dozen clicks away from depictions of sexual activity and close-up photographs of human naughty bits. If you're upset that your child might hear the word "Anal", what insanity possessed you to let him browse a website where you can find full color, high-resolution, closeup photographs of the human anus?
Sometimes, things aren't designed to be 100% child safe, even if they're educational. (A good example is National Geographic magazine. Children can learn a lot from that publication, but if you don't want to risk you child occasionally seeing a naked human, or a gory nature photo, you have to pre-screen them. That's normal.)
Even if everyone agreed with you 100% and promised never to run such an article again, it still wouldn't excuse you from your responsibility to pre-screen your child's reading material. That's part of a parent's job. Yelling at strangers on the Internet doesn't make it any less your job. How could it? 76.28.67.181 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Geez, any parent browsing this should know that their child's safety on the Internet is their, not our responsibility.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Much hay is being made about children being allowed access to the internet only with supervision. Okay. Johnny surfs to the Wikipedia main page with mommy supervising. At the top of the page, both see "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe." Johnny asks, "Mommy, what's an anal probe?" The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're unfamiliar with rectal thermometers? And your children as well? This is really getting silly. You'll encounter signs around town that will cause more delicate conversation than this one. You still haven't said which part you object to-- the scientific term "anal"? What term do your children use? Bobo? Tooshie? Petusky? Some folks let their children know that a vagina is a vagina, a penis is a penis, an anus is an anus, etc. Those kiddos have an easier time talking to doctors. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question: The supervision accomplished what, exactly? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm done entertaining you; someone else can take the next shift. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the admission that your berating of parents for letting children visit the Wikipedia main page without supervision was baseless. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It would probably accomplish getting the parent in question to review basic anatomy and physiology; I knew what an endoscope was by the time I was 7 (my dad works for Olympus), and if they were so prudish they hadn't brought it up yet it would force their hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If someone stops arguing with a Apollo-denier it doesn't mean that they acknowledge the moon-landing as a hoax. Frankly, to pretend that they have is a very rear end in a top hat thing to do. Not sure how to Assume Good Faith on such a dick move. APL (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Mommy, what's evolution?" —David Levy 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In the case of reading material, "supervision" means "pre-screening". Otherwise, as you say, it's worthless.
This has always been the case. Even with print media.
Sorry if it involves expending effort on parenting.
(However, if you would rather side-step the featured article, why not bookmark https://www.wikipedia.org That hub page does not show featured content, while still providing a search box. It's my understanding that simple.wikipedia.org is also kept roughly child-safe, for sufficiently left-wing definitions of child-safe.) 76.28.67.181 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The key thing to understand here is that Wikipedia is not a safe place for unwary children. Never mind the horrors of the anal probe - your real fear should be the Edit button. Your child could easily get out on a talk page for some obscure article nobody reads and get drawn into some conversation where he reveals details about himself, arranges a meeting, etc. that could lead to attack. It's like sending your kid into the big three-level building where they have the Chicago Public Library - you never really know what could happen in there. Articles like this serve useful notice to parents that this is a big open space like that. It's not designed to keep your kids safely penned under a watchful eye. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(And if you think that's bad, picture what could happen if someone makes a special website for a favorite cartoon character and links to it from an article...) Wnt (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the comment at the top, I'd be interested to know what exactly the child asked (if the story is true). Because one would have thought that the article itself (being an FA) would have been able to explain everything. ŞůṜīΣĻą98ąSpeak 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
---
My last comments began with a reply to:
We know perfectly well that large numbers of people will find much of Wikipedia's content objectionable. We decided to write the encyclopedia anyway.
I replied with:
Which evades the point. The issue was not "much of Wikipedia's content." The issue was the selection for the TFA on the main page, not the encyclopedia in general.
The point was dismissed as a straw man based on the responder's statement:
I include that TFA selection (and other material appearing on the main page) in "much of Wikipedia's content."
That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.
If there were no distinction between the main page and other pages, there wouldn't be special groups to decide what goes on the main page. Of the pages I typically edit, I can't think of one where there is a formal committee deciding what should be on the page. The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.
Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence. If its purpose is to showcase technical excellence, why is there no mention of any way in which this particular article exemplifies technical excellence?
None of the current definitions at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feature give any hint that a "feature" has anything to do with technical excellence. Rather, the word conveys the idea of importance. To the general visitor who is not a Wikipedia nerd, "Today's Feature Article" would seem to be synonymous with "Today's Important Article"; like the lead story in a news broadcast, or the headline in a newspaper. That is: If you get nothing else from this effort, get this.
Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.
Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?
Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy, and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions. But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars. Shocking headlines help the Enquirer sell their tabloid. But Wikipedia is not the Enquirer; it is an encyclopedia.
Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page. I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't. And I don't defend the choices that were made.
The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That one editor chooses to make no distinction between "much of Wikipedia's content" and the main page is their choice. It does not make my distinction a straw man.
You appear to have misunderstood. I didn't refer to that distinction as a "straw man". The straw man was your statement that others "claim that we can't envision what large numbers of people might find offensive". We claim no such thing. We know that certain content will offend some readers.
The claim that there is no distinction between Wikipedia's main page and "much of Wikipedia's content" appears to be false.
It's another nonexistent "claim".
I referred to "much of Wikipedia's content" not to imply that all of it is the same, but to address the aforementioned straw man by noting that we're well aware that readers are offended by material appearing throughout the site (including the main page).
Much is said about TFA being a showcase for the best writing. How many people know that?! There is no indication on the main page that the article was chosen for its technical excellence.
That's true. Perhaps we should add such an explanation. It would alleviate a fair amount of confusion (e.g. people inquiring as to why we haven't "featured" a particular article on a relevant day).
Just like the "lead story" on the news, the casual visitor to Wikipedia probably comes away with the impression that the TFA is what Wikipedia deems to be "important" information, not highlighted only for its exemplary wordsmithing.
I don't know how prevalent that misunderstanding is, but it does arise on this page from time to time. If we can do something to clarify the section's nature, we certainly should.
Was "Cartman gets an anal probe" really the most important thing Wikipedia had to say on Tuesday?
You know that this isn't what "today's featured article" means, so that's a silly question.
Maybe cash isn't important in some ivory tower fantasy,
Another straw man. No one said that cash isn't important.
and one can claim ignorance of whether a provocative headline will or won't have a negative impact contributions.
I answered your question with the honest statement that I don't know whether showcasing content that you deem "provocative" has a positive, negative or neutral monetary impact. Do you possess any relevant data, or is this purely speculative on your part?
But there is a real world with real dollars. Real servers run on real dollars.
And the Wikimedia Foundation has no shortage of said dollars. On the contrary, it continually expands its endeavors in response to increased funding.
Although there are numerous claims that "we do not intend to offend," I can't believe there is no element of snicker factor in having "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" on the Wikipedia main page.
Likewise, it's possible that some editors appreciated the Evolution article's TFA appearance as a means of "sticking it to the science deniers". It's possible that some editors enjoyed "rubbing it in the Kiwis' faces" when the Australia article appeared as TFA. We can't read people's minds.
All of this is irrelevant. No matter what sort of satisfaction editors derive from an article's TFA selection (stemming from their personal fondness of the subject or from something else), specific criteria must be met.
This applies to other main page sections as well. You've touched on a real issue, which recently arose at DYK when someone apparently tried to exploit WP:NOTCENSORED by includng the song title "gently caress You!" in an item to which it was only tangentially relevant. In that instance, there was no legitimate reason to mention the phrase; someone went out of his/her way to include it ("because we can"). This was inappropriate, as I opined at the time.
I snickered to see the bit of naughtiness on the main page, more so when I saw there was also a nude painting on the same page. That doesn't mean I think either was appropriate for the setting, because I don't.
Ah, you object to the painting's main page display too. What else should be off-limits? I assume that this is a major no-no. What about the other "objectionable" subjects cited as examples? (You've ignored this question twice.)
The self-righteous, open-minded posturing falls silent when asked what the supposedly free spirits would do in a real-world confined space where they could be identified as the offender in the presence of the offended. No one has an answer for that. Why not?
Your absurd "farting in an elevator" analogy has been addressed repeatedly. —David Levy 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought I was done with this issue, but the analogy is not absurd; and no one has answered the question in a real-world scenario: What would they do and why? It speaks to the issue of consistency in disregarding what offence one's actions may provoke in others. I don't believe it has been addressed, other than to pan it because it brings an inconvenient truth to the surface. - Ac44ck (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 04:40
