Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphical content problem

Wikiproject Graphical content problem deals with article images that may be disturbing to some viewers. The scope of this WikiProject is to define how such images are to appear on article pages and implement any solutions. For example, images such as Image:Hst sts82.jpg may be placed within warning templates such as DisturbingImage to provide viewers a warning that the image may disturbe some viewers.

Reasoning for this WikiProject
I personally do not care either way. I am neither excited or disgusted by images of sexual content. I have seen a good share of violence so pictures of "damaged" corpses do not cause me blood presure problems either. Ill be redesigning the template. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For parties who cant bear seeing such images an earlier project I proposed (which wasn't rejected nor accepted) can be useful. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC) I believe this image would be censored in any public TV viewing at even the most liberal places. But I think that's wrong. You should not hide "facts", however I also believe we should respect peoples right to read about information without being "disturbed" by the images. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It has came to my attention that on certain pages images that may be disturbing to some viewers appear large in size. I think a policy should be defined on how such images appear on article pages. Viewers should be warned before seeing the image in my opinion. Cat chi? 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

New discussion


DisturbingImage

I propose using this template: Template:DisturbingImage

Usage:

Old arguments
I am not suggesting censorship but suggesting a way to make sure only users who are not going to faint seeing such images see them. I suggest this template Cat chi? 10:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)



DisturbingImage

While there is nothing wrong with the image above, I don't want to turn this place into a dead person showcase. It was picked randomly. Cat chi? 11:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion along these lines has been going on at Autofellatio; you might want to propose this there. Sincerely, Davenbelle 11:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Objective of this project:
 * Protect vulnerable users, including chidren, from content that might be disturbing.

Unless you can give an NPOV description of exactly who needs "protecting" from exactly what content, I fail to see how that can be anything other than POV. For example, Nazi images are much more tightly controlled in Germany and France than in the UK. Nudity in TV advertising at all times of the day is common in Demark (apparently), but not in the UK. Also, how does this square with What Wikipedia is not? Thryduulf 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are a number of objective rules about indecent content! For example, the image of the Hubble Space Telescope above clearly fails the Mull of Kintyre test, and should not be shown inline. Very good example by Coolcat. Eugene van der Pijll 18:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd approve of this only if the template and warning are applied to every image in Wikipedia. Otherwise, there'll be endless fights over what images should and should not be covered. --Carnildo 22:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not quite, we can determine the boundaries. See below Cat chi? 06:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Every attempt to define things like this in the past has failed because the boundaries can never be NPOV. What is acceptable to me is not the same as what is acceptable for you, which is not the same as what is acceptable to Joe Bloggs, etc. Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is POV, and a very, very bad idea. --brian0918 &#153; 04:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=

Proposed Boundaries
 This Wikipedia page documents the proposed details of a Wikiproject that has been rejected by the community. It is inactive, kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, you may try using the Talk page or start a discussion at the Village pump.

This shpuld not be seen as censorship, the reader/user can easily click on the "image" to access the actual picture. It does not restrict access but gives info regarding the content. Basiacly, "click at own risk" deal. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What applies

 * Showing DEAD people, this is not rotten.com. Images may be facts of life, still may be semi-censored until user is willing to see it. Certain people are very sensitive or are fragile towards such images. I personally have no issue, some people do. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So all of the following would be hidden? They're all dead people.
 * Image:NickBergDead.png
 * Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg
 * Image:AbuGhraibAbuse06.jpg
 * Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg
 * while the following would be shown?
 * Image:AbuGhraibAbuse02.jpg
 * Image:Brewster dr splatt2.jpg

Please don't be stupid. By dead people I clearly mean pictures of dead people/dead bodies. You made your case. I shall stop creative thought at once. Cat chi? 09:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how about:

Image:Lenin's body.jpg

??? &mdash; Davenbelle 10:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats a dead body not dissected. I am talking about blood and gore, violence. A decent community places a warning for those, Wikipedia is not such a community. Cat chi? 13:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's not be purposely obtuse and pretend we don't know the general idea here. We have many rules and practices dependent on people's judgment for which it's not possible to decide every exceptional case in advance. There are very common classes of potentially offensive/disturbing images, and there are others that are not so common. We're not talking about removing information here, just avoiding inlining certain images; this is already policy for at least one image. Demi T/C 07:14, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

What may apply

 * Sexual Content. While I personally have no issue, sites with sexual content have an age warning. Some people find sexual content offensive. The pictures are accessible anyways. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So all of the following would be hidden? One culture or another finds them offensive for sexual content.
 * Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg
 * Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg
 * Image:Human-woman.png
 * Image:Weaving profile.jpg

There are people and cultures that find the following images offensive, should these be hidden as well?
 * Image:Smilingguy.JPG (A man with a bare chest)
 * Image:Afghan woman and child in Parwan Province.jpg (A woman wearing a Burka)
 * Image:Wikimeet-London3 03.jpg (A woman in public not wearing a burka)
 * Image:CattleRestrainedForSlaughter.jpg
 * Image:Picador spears bull.jpg (Spanish bull fighting)
 * Image:Castro Khrushchev.jpg Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev (communist leaders). Also it shows two men hugging, which might be considered homosexual by some extremists.
 * Image:Packet of cigarettes.jpg (drug paraphernalia)
 * Image:CannonCigar.jpg (drug taking (tobacco))
 * Image:Wikimeet-London3 25.jpg (drug taking (alcohol))
 * Image:Bahaullah from miller.jpg (see the end of the Bahá'u'lláh article).
 * Image:Gallery-HydePark.jpg (a woman with dyed hair). Arkady Rose might have a problem with her picture being replaced by a template.
 * Image:User Fantasy.jpg (a woman with a pet dog).
 * Image:Wikimeet-London3_12.jpg (partially exposed breast, drinking alcohol, a bi-sexual and a transsexual lesbian).
 * Image:Taty5.jpg (the girls from t.A.T.u., billed as under-age lesbians)

Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about "cultural" conflict. I am saying images showing dead people should require a warning. I have no intention of getting indulged in a cultural conflict discussion. There will be guidelines for this. In no culture it is ok to show dead people, at least not the ones I am exposed to. Sexual content has restrictions, in some cultures nudity is ok. Cat chi? 09:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what cultures you are exposed to, but in some perverse cultures this seems to be no problem. A really terrible example is our article Funeral of Pope John Paul II, which contains no less than 6 pictures of a dead body. Look at the second picture, there are thousands of people looking at it! I agree with you, we should not be encouraging this deviancy by showing it on wikipedia. Bah! Eugene van der Pijll 10:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In no culture it is ok to show dead people, at least not the ones I am exposed to. I guess you've never been to medical school or looked at an anatomy book. That aside, I think in some instances it is extremely important to show images that might shock people. Images from the WWII concentration camps are brutal, but they also serve an important purpose - that we don't forget what happened. I think people seeking out these articles are probably prepared to see images that illustrate the content. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 05:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Any site covering the hlocaust has a warning prior to entry. I am not suggesting we censor it completely, but just temporarily untill user clicks to see it. "WWII concentration camps are brutal" yes, "images that might shock people" thats what I am trying to evade, people can read about what happened without getting "shocked" by images that are there if they want to see it. Horrific images such as the ones from Holocaust deserve a full screen display IMHO. --Cool Cat Talk 15:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What does not apply

 * There is nothing wrong with the Hubble Space Telescope. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. I'm sure I've heard about religious groups who think that space travel is against the will of God. They probably wouldn't think an image of a space telescope was fine. Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Political Pictures, for example picture of Adolph Hitler does not apply either IMHO. Cat chi? 04:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? He is (one of) the most hated figures of the 20th century, should we not be "protecting" the young people from having to face up to the horrors of him/his actions until they're "old enough"? Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Common Sense can determine a long list of items Cat chi? 04:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Whose common sense? To you it seems to be common sense that Wikipedia should have a mechanism of this sort, to me it is common sense that it should not. Thryduulf 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Common sense of Greek gods, or Wikipedia community. Guidelines can determine. Cat chi? 09:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have option to apply to all images
I suggest you take a look at my proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Option to disable all inline images. Any attempt at all to classify what should be censored (except possibly for some VERY clear-cut cases, and I'm not even sure those exist) is by definition POV and will degenerate into massive debates and edit wars. So the only sensible option is to allow users to see, according to their decision, either all or no inline images. If there's sufficient interest in this proposal, I can write the relevant code. Nickptar 23:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, NPOV is a policy for article content, but I'm seeing it more and more used as an argument for or against certain policy-like practices. Just because making a decision might be hard in certain cases doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted: what's being proposed here is an editorial standard. Would we tolerate gratuitous vulgarity in article text? No, that's bad style--to say the least. So of course we exercise "POV" editorial control over what appears in Wikipedia (and how it appears). Throwing up our hands and saying "Someone will argue over the categorization, so let's not do it" just isn't the answer. Demi T/C 07:19, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)


 * Some things are obvious. Gratuitious textual vulgarity in text shouldn't be tolerated, and neither should gratuitous vulgarity in images. There are also images (Autofellatio) that have a good reason to be in Wikipedia but it's widely agreed shouldn't be inlined. But such obvious cases are few, and there are plenty of things that could offend people but are inline. I'm talking about such things as penis. Of course an image of a penis adds something to that article, and I think it's a vain hope that it'll ever be taken out of line. (There are analogies in text, for instance: the word 'nigger' has high potential to offend, but if its use adds something to an article I doubt that it'll be removed or bleeped out.)
 * I think it's pretty clear from the discussion on this page that there are a lot of things that are possibly offensive but that there will never be wide support for censoring. I think my VP post has been archived, but the gist was:
 * Some people may want to read an encyclopedia article about a penis, say, without seeing a picture of it on their screen.
 * This may just be due to personal offense, or to being at a library, at school, etc.
 * Additionally, there is a risk of an innocuous page being vandalized with a graphic inline image. This is probably a constant worry for many of those browsing WP in public places. (I'm not offended by penis or autofellatio and would just shrug off and correct a vandalism with those, but BAD STUFF would happen if I were at school and accidentally saw one of those.)
 * But proposals to prevent certain images from being displayed inline, not only cannot be expected to work, but have been shown not to work (i.e., resoundingly rejected by the community).
 * Blocking all images at the web-browser level is quite inconvenient.
 * Therefore the sensible option is to let people choose whether or not they want to see inline images.
 * Nickptar 19:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)