Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx

''Note: Older threads may be found at /Archive1. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Request details
Dispute over the use of the image on the article.

Where is the dispute?
the dispute consumes the entire talk page for the article at Talk:Goatse.cx. It spilled over a bit into a policy discussion at wp:NOT - Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not - but that went stale for different reasons, and probably doesn't need to enter into it.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:



What is the dispute?
A simple-if-heady disagreement over the use of the image on Goatse.cx. Ludwigs2 is arguing that the image has little to no encyclopedic value and should be removed because of its offensiveness, the other editors argue that the image does have encyclopedic value and should be retained under wp:NOT. the dispute has come to a stalemate on disagreements over the spirit of NOT#CENSORED and over the question of whether the picture has any actual value for the encyclopedia.

What would you like to change about this?
Basically we need to find some way to stop talking past each other. the conversation has collapsed to "yes it does so I can" vs. "no it doesn't so you can't".

How do you think we can help?
Any thing you can do to keep the conversation from going around in circles.

Mediator notes
Most mediators wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole, so I think i'll take a crack at it. Have all parties been notified of this mediation and invited to participate?
 * A link to this page has been posted on the goatse talk page. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. we'll get to the 'ten foot pole' image after we finish with this one...  -- Ludwigs 2  04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The image of a 10 foot pole is entirely necessary to the article, as a mere textual description cannot begin to properly impart all that is entailed by poleness and ten-footedness. If some people are offended due to pole envy, well that's too bad.  See WP:NOTYOURMOTHER and WP:NOTHERETOCODDLE for more details. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, i'm opening this case. What I would like is for all parties to sum up their position in one concise paragraph in the appropriate section below. Please don't reply to others' opening statements (yet), this is just for me to clarify where everyone stands at the beginning and to make sure I know exactly what the conflict is. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * just as an FYI: I mistakenly began counter-arguments (didn't read the instructions carefully), and I have since refractored those and the comments left by others pointing out my error. RasceaC pointed out that I probably shouldn't have refactored others' comments along with my mistake, but is ok with it; if Throwaway has objections I'll restore his comments at his request.  my apologies.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem Ludwigs, my comments simply mirrored raseaC's and apologized for a similar response. Tabula rasa is fine by me. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got called out for adding responses to other editors (which was fine, it was a mistake), but now I notice that all of the other editors on this page are including responses to me and each other in their sections. I request that all such comments be removed or rewritten ASAP, please. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of posting any responses yet. I propose that Spectre remove his response and Luciform's contributions be removed.  raseaC talk to me 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, the mediator requested a concise paragraph on each user's position. There should not be any counter-arguement aimed at individual user's points.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing my response if Luciform's statement is removed. Sceptre (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptre - let's not turn this into a tit-for-tat issues; let's go AGF on this instead. please remove your response, and we can get Luciform to remove his whenever he comes back to the page. -- Ludwigs 2  21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have collapsed the part of Luciform's statement that replied to other editors. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
The image was deleted at FFD - - so I would gather this mediation is no longer necessary. – xeno talk 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
This is an argument that has been ongoing since atleast 2005. Given the nature of the image concerned and the fact that apparently no consensus has yet been reached on this issue I think the more formal medcom procedure might well be justified off the bat Ajbpearce (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, as it stands the current debate is reasonably civil, just plagued by miscommunications. I think this is worth giving informal mediation a try.  if it stalemates here as well, we can move on to more formal mechanisms.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no real incivility, just a deep divide on interpretation of policy and on beliefs as to what policy should be. I don't see us reaching an agreement by ourselves, but I also don't see us being at eachothers throats (too much).  I'm not sure how the gap might be bridged.  If this doesn't work, it may be necessary to try for an arbcom ruling, but that seems a little extreme at this point.  Let's give mediation a shot, and take it from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

no commentary at all?
alright, look, I am tired of waiting for people to actually engage in discussion on this topic. I am this close to deciding unilaterally that you have all become convinced by my arguments (on the 'silence=consent' model. Give me a reason not to do that, or give me a vocal acknowledgement that that is correct; otherwise I will decide that this mediation has resolved in my favor and I will remove the image.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who is in favor of removing the image, I can say that in this case silence is not indicative of consensus in your favor, and could just as easily indicate consensus for the opposing position, so I don't think you have any basis for action. I don't know if there is any actual consensus; seems to me the silence is more indicative of everyone having said what they came here to say, and being tired of endlessly repeating it. Maybe an uninvolved administrator could offer thoughts on what the result of this discussion is. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:38, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, I know there's no consensus (I'm not dumb) but I am a bit frustrated with editors who think they can retain the status quo by not discussing the issue. If they are just dead set in not discussing the issue, they should say so and we can close the mediation and move on to some more fruitful approach; if they want to continue the mediation, they need to talk.  I'm not willing to keep in a holding pattern on this issue indefinitely, however, and I will remove the image if it looks like that's going to happen (if they want to keep it in a holding pattern, let them keep it in a holding pattern with the image removed).


 * If you can find an uninvolved admin, I'm all for that, but I have no idea how to attract someone who is willing and able to assess the situation without preconceptions. how would we do that?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion has stymied because you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and keep asking questions we've already answered repeatedly. Even the mediator noted that. Sceptre (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The next place I'd go would be RFC (an RFC subpage, like this). The format of listing argument summaries, and lists of those who support each one, seems like an efficient way of dealing with these issues that don't get anywhere in open discussion. If there's significantly more support for a position, it should show clearly in a page like that. If you do this, post a link to it on this page. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:56, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)


 * we've had a number of RfC's on this issue on the article talk page, and the result (as far as I can see) is always the same - a majority of the editors who respond object to the image, and then a dedicated core group of supporters finds some sketchy technical reason to assert that the majority opinion doesn't count. Therefore a new RfC strikes me as a lose/lose proposition: if the majority comes down on my side of the debate, Sceptre and Throwaway will throw out the bulk of the responses and claim a victory regardless; if by random luck they happen to get a majority, they will never shut up about it.  If you want a head count, let's go back over the previous RfC's and other entries on the talk page and tally up supporters vs. opponents - I suspect it will be 3:1 in favor of removal, but I could be wrong.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly about a two-sided head count. For example, you think the image should be removed, and so do I, but for different reasons. I would therefore probably not support your summary at the RFC. Similarly, many on the other side of the debate have different reasoning for being there. Such an RFC could be a good way of determining which underlying principles have the most support, rather than merely the "yes or no" of inclusion of the image. Once the principles with support can be determined, a more clear picture of whether or not the image should be included can be determined, perhaps as well as other similar images. It's not just a matter of settling this one content issue, but having something to look at for future such issues. This seems like something that will come up again. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:17, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'm open to the effort (I'm not going to go so far as to suspend my cynicism about the situation, but I will keep it in check as best I can). If the others agree, how do we go about beginning the process, and how do we advertise the RfC?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never done it before, but I'd probably follow the format of the example RFC I linked above. Not sure what kind of consensus there needs to be to start one of those, but once you've decided to go ahead with it, I think you'd create an RFC subpage with a neutral-yet-descriptive title, as in the example, and also follow the section header format in the example, filling in the pertinent information. It could be advertised here, at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, WP:AN, etc.  Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:46, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)


 * well, let's let Sceptre, Throwaway and Wordsmith chime in on the matter. If they are willing, I'll set something up modeled after the link you provided.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur that the lack of recent additions here is due to people being tired of arguing the same things. We have gone round and round, no one has moved at all. I don't think there can be any consensus here - people are too entrenched, on both sides people are arguing with emotion and gut instinct as much as policy. There is no clear-cut answer. I don't think any RFC or even an edict from Jimbo will solve this. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the matter is simple: working with 'base impressions' alone, the image distracts the reader. The arguments, though, have become religious, as they have to be.
 * The image is vulgar, carnal and uninformative: It naturally attracts attention - as you read the article - without providing any benefit to it ( distracting ).
 * It is immediately obvious that using the screen-shot format is a policy-hack, which is another bad "editorial judgment" lowering the quality of the article.
 * The strongest 'policy-sounding' argument is that we should not reproduce the content of shock-sites - which is just commonsense and should never be up for debate.
 * Will an RfC give us a lasting resolution?
 * Luciform (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, a fair RfC would be solid, I think. the problem is that each time an RfC is started, it is closed down quickly, and the responses are manipulated to support maintaining the image (basically, any argument against the image is dismissed on one of a handful of pre-given pretexts - a claim that the argument violates NOT#CENSORED, that it represents IDONTLIKEIT, or more specious arguments such as that the image satisfies fair use requirements, or that an image is required on the page.  I've spent the bulk of my energy in this debate sqaushing those silly arguments and trying to get proponents to offer a positive reason for including the image (which as of yet they have not been able to do).  I was going to give this another week or so of quiet sitting, and then start stirring the pot again, but if you think an RfC would be helpful, we could do that - we just need to set the ground rules in advance to keep it from getting subverted or quashed by over-eager proponents.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's no positive inclusion rationale needed. Pictures that depict an article topic are always included, as long as free/fair-use ones are available, in all situations, without any rationale necessary. Therefore the burden falls on the exclusionists. The sooner you realize this and start working out a good exclusion rationale, the sooner you might have a chance at making headway. I've got a good one going above, I think, in that we should specifically seek to avoid re-creating shock site material (for the reasons I already described, and won't reiterate again here), if you want to try building on that. If you insist on sticking to the "why should it be included" argument, you're going to keep losing. Equazcion  ( talk ) 06:22, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * two points to that, Equazcion
 * Obviously positive inclusion rationale is needed, If only on some perfunctory level.  You know as well as I do that I couldn't put a picture of a duck or a willow tree on this article without some explanation of why it was pertinent, and you know that if I gave an explanation that was idiotic the image would be removed.  Likewise, if I could give a convincing reason why even such an absurd addition like the image of a duck was useful it would be included over the objections of editors who merely thought it was silly.  Wikipedia (like any good encyclopedia) includes material that is useful in explaining the topic and excludes material that is not useful to the topic, and in the final analysis the 'usefulness' of any particular material should be determined solely, exclusively, and completely by a consensus established in reasoned discussion.  Something like NOT#CENSORED is a statement by the community that certain behaviors are strongly encouraged/discouraged, and it needs to be respected on those grounds, but it is not intended as an authoritative dictum that must be obeyed in a mindlessly literal fashion over all considerations of context, common sense, and reason.
 * I have given good exclusion rationale, which is presented in numerous places on this page and on the article talk page. you can see one example immediately preceding the section break for this section.  The problem is that the proponents for this image have proven themselves incapable of hearing or responding to the arguments I make on a reasoned basis. Either they stick to an almost religious repetition of their interpretation of the literal text of NOT#CENSORED, or they stick to a weak and logically insupportable positive assertion that conflates the site with the image itself.
 * Yes, you have a good argument going as well - I don't think that there's all that far a gap between what you are saying and what I'm saying, truth be told - and I'll point out that you have been getting the same non-responsive treatment that I got. There has to come a point where one says "these people are never going to bow to reason" and take whatever actions are necessary to bypass them.


 * Let me point out that I have nothing against any of the other editors here; I just happen to think they have a blind spot on this issue you can drive a moose through. It's nice when you can actually get people to see what they are (currently) incapable of seeing, but most of the time you have to settle for obviating their blindness so that they stop causing everyone else headaches.  If you have a better idea for getting the point across here, I'm all for it, but I'm coming to the conclusion that we may need to settle for the less optimal outcome in this case.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Positive rationale is not needed when the image depicts the article topic. You don't need inclusion rationale to include a picture of the Mona Lisa in the Mona Lisa article, or a portrait of Van Goh in his article, nor a picture of Goatse in the Goatse article. The only reason people ask for inclusion rationale in this instance is because the image is shocking, and others are calling you out on it, rightly. If the image literally depicts the article topic, the question is not why include it. It's why not include it. Again you'd do much better to focus your arguments on that. Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:20, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... excuse me for pointing it out, but what you've just given is a positive rationale: i.e. "there's a value in including an image when the image depicts the article topic".  and it is a good rationale, but it is not a rule, a law, or an unquestionable necessity of the universe.  so, we have a positive rationale (as you've just given it) for including the image, and the reasons and rationales I gave above for removing it (e.g. it is not intrinsically informative to the topic, not an actual depiction of the topic, a mere effort to replicate the shock site rather than describe it).  idealistically this is where we would discuss the pros and cons of the various rationales and come to a reasoned conclusion; pragmatically this is where proponents insist the image must be included as some odd extension of un-abridgeable law.  do you see my point?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than "there's a value in it", even if we are going to call this a positive rationale. It's more of an unquestioned necessity, as you put it. Whenever there's a picture available of a topic, it's included. This is regardless of being able to positively describe specifics of the ways in which it "is informative to the topic", as you put it (excuse the scare quotes). The universal thinking (yes, universal) on Wikipedia is that if an image depicts the topic, it's included, and the only arguments against that are illegality or the presence of another image already that does the same job. An encyclopedia tries to provide pictures of all its topics if possible. You can argue til the end of time about why that is, but that's really just academic, and it won't get you anywhere with the people you need to convince. What you (the overarcing "you") need to do is convince everyone to abandon the universal practice in certain instances, so there needs to be a really good reason this image needs to be excluded. Ask your opponents why it should be included, and they'd be entirely justified in saying "that's just what we do for all topics, ps. see WP:UNCESORED". Many will try to break it down for you and philosophize, but again, that's academic, and in the end it comes down to universal practice. The burden of proof is entirely on your side. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:49, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * just so we are clear with each other: I am totally happy to accept your assertion that there is an unspoken, universal agreement/practice that images which depict a topic are included on topic articles. As you say, it's natural, it's common sense, in the vast majority of cases it bears no discussion, it's just done. And I would entirely agree that in the vast majority of cases this is a good thing - no question and no argument from me on that point.  The place where I disagree (and trust me, this is as frustrating for me as it is for all of you) is with the implication that it is somehow forbidden to discuss the inclusion of the image, as though there were some god-given rule that it must be done.  No. using depictive images stands as a generally accepted default, sure, but it is not a rule that lies beyond the consensus process.   In this case I am more than happy to acknowledge the accepted default, but I have good reasons for asserting that the accepted default should not apply in this case.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. That's exactly where you should focus your argument -- not on asking people why it needs to be included, since inclusion is the default; but on showing that there are good reasons to make an exception to the default in this case. This is a distinction that I think is important to keep in mind for future discussions on the topic. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:28, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. I'll try to keep it framed that way.  I may occasionally have to shoot down the 'It must be included' type arguments, but I think I can do that without shifting the focus away from the arguments for exclusion.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Offense
Also, just wanted to jump in here and address offensiveness one more time. It seems that we aren't taking the issue seriously enough. Just because there were once a bout of forum postings that would causes fits in sufferers of epilepsy, doesn't mean that any article on Wikipedia should include the animated images that were the cause... no matter how notable the occurrence was.

It is hard to claim that Goatse is non-offensive (if it were not, it would not have become notable).

The 'visual schema' argument is weak, and besides that, the pro-inclusion argument seems to largely reduce to: "the image is needed in the article to convey offense": to offend, which is not a valid reason for inclusion.

Here's a quote from Jimmy Wales: One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

I think inclusion is a complete failure of "sound editorial judgment".

Luciform (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noting that argumentum ad jimbonem isn't a very strong argument for anything. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * granted, but the argument itself (without reference to the source) is acute, and another way of putting what I've been arguing for such a long time here. The image is offensive, and it isn't necessary by any but the most wild stretches of imagination, and so removing it (IMO) is an exercise in sound editorial judgement.  However, none of the proponents seem to want to consider that, so I've been forced to use more didactic arguments. pity...  -- Ludwigs 2  18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't say definitively that it isn't necessary, especially when that's the major argument we're trying to resolve here. Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry, you're right. I don't think the offensiveness of the image is in dispute, but I should have qualified the necessary part.  got a bit carried away with my language.   -- Ludwigs 2  19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the argument may have merit, I was just noting that attributing it to Jimbo gives it no extra weight. The argument should be considered on its merits, irregardless of who said it. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
People seem to only assert that use of the screenshot is not copyright infringement. Again, putting the image inside a screenshot sounds like it is getting around Wikipedia's fair-use policy, but it doesn't: you could do this with any digital image whatsoever and claim that because it is contained inside a "screenshot", it is fair-use. Our use is actually illegal.

Discussion over the copyright seems to have ended with this statement by User:Throwaway85:
 * FUR was already covered many moons ago, appears to be a red herring.

Does anyone know how the issue was handled before? Is there a problem with bringing up fair-use now? Luciform (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main thrust of it is that it is of sufficiently low resolution, is the smallest portion of the website possible for visual identification, is the primary means of visual identification of the article subject, illustrates the topic of the article, and is not easily replaceable with a free alternative. I believe it has been decided that this satisfies WP:NFUG as an appropriate rationale. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What reasons do we have to not include it?
Alright, we've discussed the potential reasons to include it, and come up with two. Now, what reasons are there to potentially exclude it? After we figure this out, we'll get to weighing the positives and negatives. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a non-free file. It will have to meet the fair-use rationale to be allowed in a Wikipedia article.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this question is a non-starter: the primary reason not to use this file is that it's broadly offensive and of marginal or negligible value, but if I say that outright (as I suppose you'll see in a moment) we'll go right back into the value issue that hasn't been decided above. In other words, the reason not to include it is obvious, but it is rejected on (what I personally believe) is really specious logic.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason to remove this image would be if it was a) unnecessary, and/or b) a violation of the NFCC, which are overlapping but not always inclusive reasons. As we've accepted that it does pass the NFCC, I think that we should only remove if it was unnecessary—which I dispute, because of point #4, and, to a lesser reason, #2 and #3, above. Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * and my point is proven - lol. so, back to the discussion of value?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ( Section by User:Luciform )
 * Reasons not to include (feel free to expand, renumber, or not...):
 * 1) Grossly offensive.
 * Hard to deny. More related to "Not informative" (the image is disgusting and unnecessary). Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Not informative.
 * The image is shocking. Informing the reader of this is enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Our aim would be to document this with as little offense as possible. In no serious academic or professional descriptions of an offensive event or thing is the offense intentionally and entirely reproduced. This principle would extend to entries in an encyclopedia. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because image can be summarized with, "a picture of a man stretching his anus", informativeness is not lost. The image is (already) unnecessary to the article. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Identifying' the image is only useful to those that are already familiar with the image or to those that wish to be. For the latter, a link suffices (especially considering how offensive the image is). To reiterate: I do not think the image is either relevant or informative, the link would only serve the 'still-curious'. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Not notable.
 * Inclusion of the image makes a joke of Wikipedia. Plenty of things are equally notable only for being deplorable, yet for being thus focused, they only earn a passing mention in serious writing - one that certainly excludes the horrendous detail exposed by this image. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Copyright infringement.
 * In the only strong 'pro-image' argument, it is pivotal to admit that it is the only significant content on the site (thus justifying its removal because it is not fair-use). Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Defamation.
 * As far as I know, this may be a weak argument since no personally identifying information is published here, but still another 'moral consideration' (even if it can't be found on the original site). Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) The image is illegal, depending on how it is used (specific mention).
 * While we can argue that the image is not here specifically to offend 'by surprise', it certainly does that. The law sets a strong precedent for the removal of the image. The (maximum) 10 year sentence emphasizes this. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been indicated on Wikipedia that this page was notorious for abuse on Slashdot and other sites (prank links to a legitimate looking site).. And with an unnecessary redirect ("what would you expect to find here" in policy) like "hello.jpg", I am beginning to suspect that some people have primarily defended the image for its abuse potential. Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is also linked to from List of Internet phenomena. Very unfortunate since I expect mostly youths (children) to have the inclination to read such content (and stumble upon the image). Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Final remark: We have some obligation to keep this site clean and responsible. Given its cost, complete lack of benefit, and irrelevance, the only reasonable ("commonsense") thing to do is to remove the image.
 * Luciform (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that final remark. We do not censor outselves, as you imply we should by wanting to keep this "clean". -mattbuck (Talk) 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You disagree with one word of the final remark taken out of context. I said that inclusion is costly and non-beneficial. The offense compounds these issues. Luciform (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I similarly dismiss every argument he made except #1 and #6 as being refuted elsewhere on this page. #1 is accepted by all parties, and a non-issue. #6 clearly does not apply to this situation, as there is nothing misleading about the image or our use of it whatsoever. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, the legality of the image is not for us to decide. If it is an issue, Mike Godwin will step in and take office action. We are not lawyers, so debating the legality of it is pointless. Nearly all of Luciform's argument is irrelevant and has been refuted. Point 2 is potentially valid, but everything about offensiveness (yes, we know it is offensive to some people) and defamation, etc isn't really an argument at all. What i'm seeing now is leaning towards a consensus to include the image. We still need to discuss the finer points of this debate, but I think we're getting closer to a resolution here. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The two strongest points are #1 and #2 - the others may be less relevant. The image is completely uninformative and yet extremely offensive. The only counter-argument is the informative value of the image, which by what I've seen is non-existent. I hardly think this issue is close to resolution.
 * Point #4 (fair-use) rather than being "refuted" has been completely ignored.
 * Point #3 (not-notable) is valid at least when considering that the only counter-argument seems to be, "the image is repulsive, and thus notable".
 * Luciform (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Only 1 argument for inclusion... (User:Luciform)

1. While not convention per se, it is commonplace for articles on websites to include a screenshot of that website's homepage. 2. The image aids in visual identification of the phenomenon. 3. The website goatse.cx is notable only because of hello.jpg, and the impact that the latter has had on internet culture.
 * I don't think this is true to begin with.
 * As far as I've seen very few articles about traditional and popular websites on Wikipedia have screenshots of the website itself. Rather they focus on the function and purpose of the website.
 * If you restated, it might be true: Screenshots are conventional for articles about websites having a front-page image that some believe to have a prominent and thus notable feature.
 * Besides being convoluted, this becomes a restatement of points 3 (and maybe one interpretation of point 2)
 * ...It seems that point 1 is invalid.
 * Brand-style identification is an invalid argument (as per User_talk:Ludwigs2's statement).
 * This point is only valid if taken to mean "to document the image". This meaning is subsumed by point 3.
 * I would restate this as "goatse.cx is most notable only because of hello.jpg, and the impact that the latter has had on internet culture"

It seems that only point 3 might be valid.

By point 3 (the only remaining point), the image should be removed because the content of the image does not at all help describe "the impact that (the image) has had on the internet culture".

To the uninitiated, goatse.cx is only notable as a shock-site.

It is only to the previously familiar that '(re-)identification' is possible, but in this case it serves no purpose.

In both cases, its only potential is to offend the reader.

The image has no informative value.

Given that the only argument for inclusion is invalid (and that all other arguments reduce to this argument), the legal issues, and the offensiveness, I think the case is stronger for removal.

Luciform (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you would say that the stronger case is for removal, since you're pro-removal. The pro-inclusion editors here believe that the stronger case is for inclusion. It has already been rejected that the image has zero informative value, and the legal issues are likewise not our problem. We are not lawyers, so we should let the real lawyers step in if there's a problem. As an impartial mediator who has seen the arguments presented by everyone, I think that right now consensus is leaning towards inclusion. The Wordsmith Communicate 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * wordsmith: I don't think it's fair to say that we have rejected the idea that the image has zero informational value - where did you get that idea? -- Ludwigs 2  15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be that the image does have some sort of value, but what is being decided now is whether or not it is enough to overcome objections about its offensiveness. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * let me be frank: the purpose of a mediator is to help clarify issues, not to further confuse them, so please be more circumspect with statements like this. The problem this discussion has been having (IMO) is that proponents of the image are using a dodgy, circular bit of reasoning around the 'value' point.  their argument (in total, as far as I can tell) works like this: (1) if an image has value to the topic, it must be included; (2) no other consideration for the inclusion/exclusion may be considered; (3) an image has value merely by virtue of being an image.  This is  tautological argument that allows the inclusion of any image that anyone wants to fight for, because it precludes any discussion of whether the image adds to or detracts from the article.   I disagree with all three of these points, but whenever I try to discuss one of them, the proponents defend it by shifting the discussion to another point.  in other words, when I try to question the 'it must be included' point, someone will counter that offensiveness is not a reason for exclusion; when I shift to try to discuss considerations for inclusion/exclusion, someone will counter by saying the image has value; when I try to question the value point, people go back and assert that the image must be included.


 * The problem I have with the statement "Consensus appears to be that the image does have some sort of value" is that now proponents are likely to throw in a new argument, to whit: 'point 1 is true, because the mediator said so' which will add a new level of obfuscation to the debate. I am not averse to reaching consensus on this, even if consensus means that the image is retained, but I am not inclined to agree to what I can only see as piss-poor reasoning.  when they can defend/explain (rather than assert) the image's value, I'll concede the point; if they can't, I won't.  I do not need you helping them assert its value as an a priori fact.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I've been silent as of late due to workload and burnout, but I'll step in here. A mediator does not clarify a discussion, they seek to compel the involved parties to reach a conclusion.  This can absolutely include telling one party they're wrong.  I should know, my father is a practicing mediator for both Small Claims and the BC Supreme Court.  Many has been the time where he's encouraged a party to settle to avoid the hassle of a trial where the outcome will likely be against them.  I'll review some of the other contributions here and provide my thoughts.  Right now, however, I'm enjoying a beer and a hockey game, so it will take some time. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

break
I'd like to introduce an idea here. I haven't read through this discussion extensively so please pardon me if this has been brought up already. The problem with using an object's potential degree of offense to determine its inclusion is that there's no objective way to judge offense, right? That's why we have the NOTCENSORED policy, primarily, I think. It's a good reason, it has longstanding acceptance, and I'm an ironclad supporter of it. However, run with me on this, if you will: Goatse is widely defined, even by secondary reliable sources (as far as I know), as a "shock site", a website whose very reason for existence is to shock viewers. Knowing that, it would now seem, the question of offense moves slightly off the "definitely subjective" grid into someplace new. I'd be interested in what others think. Equazcion ( talk ) 19:02, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * I've actually used something like this reasoning fairly steadily - you can see it in the section.  this is, incidentally, where the discussion seems to be stuck.  I don't see anything wrong with my reasoning there, and the proponents for the image have shown no sign of backing off a strict 'goatse=image' platform.  the whole situation has turned into trench warfare.  I'll wait a bit longer to see if any breakthroughs happen, before deciding that the mediation has failed completely and considering my next move.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If it did receive coverage in secondary sources, that'd give an additional reason to its usage; in that the image itself is notable. I do agree that it'd take the image somewhere nearer to "objectively offensive", but again, an argument could be made that the maintainers of the website chose said image because it would offend a great majority of people. That said, there are other cases in which this happens: Jyllands-Posten, South Park, Family Guy, which we cover as a point of encyclopedic treatment. Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we display pictures of the possibly "intentionally offensive" material that those cartoons and newspapers publish? Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:05, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * We do. Definitely in the case of Jyllands-Posten. For some time, we did have an image of Muhammad as depicted in South Park too. Sceptre (talk) 23:37, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * I see we do have that for Jyllands-Posten, not sure about South Park. As far as I remember, being a South Park fan, the image of Muhammad was censored during airing. Doesn't matter -- Anyway, I'm willing to go out on a limb to say that the cartoon and newspaper are not considered universal intentional shock material to the degree that goatse is, at least by reliable secondary sources. I'd have to do some research to say for sure. Also, shock sites are meant to trick people into viewing them and then surprising them with displeasurable content, while the same couldn't be said of South Park et al.


 * Regardless I think it would be nice for people to be able to go to an encyclopedia and read about what the site is, without having to also being accosted with the visual that was intended to cause everyone displeasure. Doesn't that make a little sense?


 * I might even be in favor of a policy addition that states "Wikipedia does not reproduce the contents of websites that are confirmed by reliable independent sources to be 'shock sites'". This makes some sense to me. Again I'm speaking as an otherwise stalwart supporter of NOTCENSORED.


 * Also, consider the current reality of the Wikipedia situation: Imagery is already pretty much censored here. If you really wanted to demonstrate a lack of censorship for reasons of offense, put up an image of lemonparty.org at the shock site article. I doubt it would fly. The general unstated rule here is that sexual images showing actual sexual acts between at least two bodies (sometimes not even) are to be replaced with cartoons in medical/sex act articles, and otherwise simply excluded. There was a time when this wasn't so, but it is now, as far as I've seen. People don't really talk about this, because they don't want to admit to censorship based on offense, but it's happening regardless.


 * The question of this image, therefore, is not an objective one. It's more a matter of degree, and where people feel it falls on that scale. I'm open to polling to determine this. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:11, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that an image of Goatse, or lemonparty, would be acceptable at Shock site because of NFCC reasons, not offensiveness. And there are a few cases in which I think we do have physical representations of sexuality: in particular, autofellatio, genital piercings, and BDSM articles use images—in the latter two cases, too much, I feel. And I wouldn't be open to polling because the instinctive "eww teh gayz" feeling would be too hard to eliminate; the last time a straw poll was done on this article, most people opposed simply because of their personal feelings to the image. Also, I prefer NOT#CENSORED's (current?) wording that "inappropriate shock site imagery" is obviously not okay, because it allows for the few times, like here, where it may be better to include it from an encyclopedic perspective. Sceptre (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * errr... so what you're saying is that consensus doesn't apply when an editor can read minds sufficiently well to see what people are really thinking?  hmmmmm....  guess what I'm thinking right now.   -- Ludwigs 2  01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Assume lemonparty had its own page if you must, though I really shouldn't need to point out this specific example -- please don't split hairs; respond to the point. This is how arguments become inflamed. You know I was referring to some hypothetical situation where the image would be otherwise acceptable, so respond accordingly rather than forcing the other party into some irrelevant specific description of the hypothetical scenario.


 * Now that we've wasted an exchange of comments over this, assuming lemonparty.org had its own article, I don't think its image would fly. Again photos of sexual contact between two or more parties is generally not allowed here. Autofellatio is only one person, and the BDSM photos are questionable in their actual sexuality. If I need to get specific, photos of explicit sexual contact between two or more individuals involving explicit genital contact is not allowed, by way of unwritten rule. Their degree of offense, or perhaps parental fear, has effectively censored them. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:12, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * Lemonparty would probably fly, as it is rather vanilla for shock site material. That site's shock value comes from the realization that Your Parents Had Sex™ and society's traditional (and, thank god, diminishing) dislike of homosexual conduct. And actually, the reason we don't have that many photos of sexual contact between two or more parties isn't because of offensiveness. It's because, I believe, that there's legal issues regarding consent to photography and sexual activity (i.e., both parties are over 18 and agreed to filming/photographing themselves in coitus) of the parties involved. That's why a lot of our sexual imagery has been donated to us by porn sites who have done the (costly) clearance for us. Sceptre (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * hang on, I do want to reiterate my point here, because I've run into this argument before and it bothers me. You said "the last time a straw poll was done on this article, most people opposed simply because of their personal feelings to the image".  This implies there was a discussion, some decision process, the consensus was to remove the image, and the consensus was over-ruled because one or more proponents for the image decided that the majority was reacting inappropriately.  On what basis was that decision made?  the problem here is that the argument is irrefutable - all you ever need to do is say that opponents are reacting inappropriately and you can simply assert consensus over the objections of everyone else involved.  now if you have a reason or system for determining when an editor is reacting inappropriately, that's one thing, but I'd like it to be explicit, otherwise I can't help but believe it's just a tactic.  every time you run such a poll, the majority of people say to remove - why is that not considered a consensus?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Most judgment of consensus works that way Ludwig, even during polls, with some judgment of the voters' stated rationale. That's why they're not treated as straight votes with no rationale. Sceptre, I question if that's the actual reason. I find it difficult to believe that no intercourse image could be found with proof of age for the intercourse article; or that, by mere chance, all sexual images consisting of two or more people were removed for lack of proof, while all sexual images not involving two or more people happen to have said proof. The chances of the situation being influenced by potential offense etc. is pretty high in my mind. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:55, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus on Wikipedia, in theory, should be built on the principles of Wikipedia and not principles from outside (of course, the latter may influence the former). For the purposes of not going meta, don't think about consensus for the principles :P. This was actually a point of disagreement when I mentioned this image to a friend (who was watching the discussions) shortly before this MedCab case opened: I was of the opinion that only Wikipedia-based arguments should be countered in evaluating consensus; my friend was of the opinion that a strong numerical consensus can, in some limited cases, be strong enough to warrant removal even without Wikipedia-based reasons. Another thing we mentioned was that the best way to make the image go away was to think of a good policy-based reason to make it go away: take the Virgin Killer album cover, for example. Pre-controversy the article had nothing to say about the infamous cover, and we could have easily removed it and justified the removal by saying "the American cover is more memorable and recognizable, and I don't believe we could have a fair use justifaction for the original cover". Of course, when people started complaining about it, it just gave the image more reason to be there.
 * The consensus wasn't overruled; it was simply too old to be of any force as it was four years ago. Hell, we don't even force the Gdansk vote anymore, and that was around the same time of the Goatse discussion. Wikipedia editors starting out today shouldn't be subject to the opinions of a few people that edited and left back in 2005. That's why policy needs to be continuously backed by the existence of consensus, else it would be tagged as having only historical interest. The same is to be said here: since 2005, there has only been one deletion discussion to have properly run its course: a discussion at FFD in November. Also, quite a lot of the arguments in the 2005 straw poll addressed copyright concerns. As our copyright policy has significantly evolved over the past five years, it would warrant a re-examination of that consensus. I believe that the consensus, when factoring in Wikipedia-principle-based arguments only, would lean to inclusion of the image.
 * And, re Equazcion: it may not be the real reason, but it's a convincing and policy-based (actually, legally-based) reason. The law regarding pornography is complex and you need all sorts of clearances and hurdles to jump through to publish the photos; as Wikipedians, we can't do that ourselves, and although the Foundation may be able to, they wouldn't be willing. Best to let someone do the clearances for us. And, truth be told, removing the Virgin Killer image for identification reasons and removing the Goatse image for copyright reasons would probably be the veil for the real reason: because I don't like them. Using a veil isn't new; we do it all the time at AfD. Sceptre (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record I featured prominently during the Virgin Killer debacle and fought rather hard to keep it. Anyhow: The law, I believe, is generally the same for explicit images regarding one or two -person acts (at least in Florida and the rest of the US), so I don't think even as a veil it could explain the exclusion of the one without the other. Regardless of veils, reasons for inclusion or exclusion don't need to be policy or legally-based, and the fact that those are merely veils reinforces the point. Wikipedia isn;t a legal system and we don't need any rules specifically prohibiting something in order to get rid of it. The veils as you put it are not necessary. Decisions can simply be based on existing practices. If the existing practice is to exclude images that are too offensive, the community can decide whether this image is too offensive also.


 * Furthermore I'd still be in favor of a policy addition that shock sites are not to be reproduced, even for their own articles. This seems almost like a no-brainer the more I think about it. By reproducing the imagery of a successful shock site we basically have a 100% chance of shocking our readers. The role of an encyclopedia in this case, IMO, is the opposite of showing the shock site imagery: To describe it so that people can read about it without having to look at it. Again, no specific policy words need to support this. Wikipedia is not a legal system. If people feel a certain way and consensus can be demonstrated, a decision can be made regardless, no veil necessary. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:50, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that the "existing practice" is to exclude offensive images, as that would run counter to the deeply ingrained "not censored" motif. Re: the legal points: there's something to be said about (actual) amateur pornography in that the legal situation is murky regarding the parties' consenting to being filmed. With this image, there's obviously consent by the subject, but we'd still need a good indication, if not legal proof, that the subject is of majority. And you are right that inclusion/exclusion doesn't need to be based on policy, but only to the point where doing so would be controversial. If either is controversial, you better have a good reason for doing it.
 * And I'd be opposed to such a ruling: it creates an exemption to something which I'm personally glad is a universal rule. The percentage you give is vastly overestimated. Anything on the site has a potential to shock a reader. The number of people who will be shocked by the article would not be that high. For one, some people know about Goatse already. Secondly, we'd get most footfall from links from Shock site, Google, and the like, where the shock nature is already known. Some may get linked by trolls, yes, but I doubt the number will be that high. And the point of consensus on Wikipedia is that policy-based arguments should win over specious arguments, even if the latter is the majority. Sceptre (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying precisely that the existing practice is to exclude offensive images, which you more or less agreed with before, in saying that legal and policy veils masked that true motivation. The good reason to make this policy change would be because it benefits the encyclopedia, in the end. A verified shock site is intended to, and successful in, generally offending the majority of people; Wikipedia is here to provide information; ergo most users who come here for information on the site will nevertheless be offended. It would benefit the encyclopedia to provide the information without the shock, while still providing a link so the imagery is available to those who want to see it. The only good reason I can see for rejecting that rationale is to defend the ideal of an uncensored encyclopedia; the fact that this is actually a veil (read: fallacy), and the fact that in situations like these it actually hurts readership, make that universal ideal rather unworthy of defending, to a point, IMO. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:49, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the legal and policy veils create an acceptable motivation to remove images. As I said: we use veils all the time. Take AfD for example: I once took the BrokeNCYDE article to AfD, before they became notable, because I found them to be talentless and only right that they shouldn't have received coverage. But I didn't say that; I said that there were notability and process concerns. If you can't give a good Wikipedia-principle-based reason to remove something of potential use, then don't do it. This reminds me of clarification of what IAR is not: it says that you do need a good reason to ignore rules like the editing policy. And I don't find "because it's offensive" to be good enough because removal for that reason stinks of censorship. Sceptre (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As I just said, my reason is not as simple as "it's offensive", but that it hurts the encyclopedia. The rules in this case prevent us from improving the encyclopedia as I explained in my last comment. You're free to disagree as I'm sure many would, but I'm thinking about putting the question to the community somehow. Equazcion ( talk ) 13:43, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it hurt the encyclopedia, exactly, in a way that the other sexually explicit images don't? Sceptre (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I described that already above, the comment that starts with "I'm saying precisely..." Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:12, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the second part of the question. Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious if any headway or strong consensus has been made here yet. I've read through the arguments completely, and as a newcomer to the argument at hand, I must say the arguments against are far more convincing.  Especially regarding whether it is informative.
 * Look, in the end, we are editing an encyclopedia. The idea that any image may be included, using the censor policy as a crutch, has no bearing on whether an image actually contributes to the article.  Basically, in the end, the question is not "Should we include it because we can", but rather the much simpler question of "Does the inclusion help the article"?  I feel it's been adequately shown that it indeed harms the article simply because the shock value is so distracting.  At this point, as a reader, the article was hard to read from the distracting image.
 * Now, I can't imagine how editors may arbitrarily decide to override a consensus that the image is not useful to article because of doubts of reasons behind a vote to remove. If this is the case, it's not fair to simply say "Well, sorry, since voting won't work I guess we're stuck with the de facto".  This is a very wriggly way of attempting to get out of a concrete consensus.  If indeed we are not going to decide this via a vote, this needs to be moved on and taken care of - simply waiting out the matter is not a reasonable course of action.  EDIT: I forgot to sign in, signing comment now.  JPetersen 23:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been some action on this lately. User:Prodego deleted the image. This has resulted in a Deletion Review, which concluded that it should have been listed at File for Deletion. And that's where the discussion is at, now. You might want to jump in there, to keep the discussion on one page. Remco47 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't seen that! :) JPetersen (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives
I haven't read much of the discussion, so apologies if this has already been brought up. But is there a reason the image can't be hidden with a template or something? (I know there are some accessibility issues with {show} and it might not work with screen readers or something, but it is used in other articles from time to time for things like track listings.) Or just moved further down the page so people don't see it without scrolling? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We went through both points on the Autofellatio and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which ended in rejection of both of those proposals. Sceptre (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * neither of which applies in this case, incidentally... -- Ludwigs 2  20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)-- Ludwigs 2  20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the only person who's arguing this. And you're failing. Sceptre (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * am not!   -- Ludwigs 2  18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to say that I think the template is an excellent solution. - The Aviv (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that every time it's been floated to hide content for reasons not related to the encyclopedia, it's been rejected. Sceptre (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that's a non-useful statement. that fact that the idea has been rejected does not mean that it's a bad idea.  can you make something more constructive of that?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in, collapsing has been rejected for the purposes of hiding content of any sort because it has serious technical drawbacks. It often does not work properly on mobile browsers.  It does not properly translate to print.  It has accessibility issues with screen readers.  Some navigation boxes are allowed to be collapsed because they are no use to a reader of printed material.  All in all it's been discussed to death and rejected every time as a potential solution. Gigs (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't understand we we can't take the simple step of using a link rather than a transclusion - that would keep it off the page entirely unless someone chose to add it.  or possibly we could do something with ajax so that the image is only loaded on request...   Of course, we'd need to set up some guidelines for when and where we use that approach (in this case, for instance, I truly don't think the image belongs at all, so I am resistant legitimizing it even through a link), but still...  -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)