Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Virgo - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The welcome for this project idea was 'cold' enough to convince also the creator to drop the idea. Whatever merit is in the underlying concerns themselves can be followed-up in different form as seems to be the case. Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite claims to the contrary, this project seems to be only interested in far-reaching censoring of Wikipedia. The first two articles targeted by it are Princess and dragon and Mermaid. When reading the project description, I thought it would be about replacing images of penises and pearl necklaces on articles not really related to them (made-up example: like e.g. chromosome). However, the aim seems to be to remove even classic artworks about themes often associated with partial nudity (like mermaids). I can see no justification for such a move, and seriously doubt the need for such a project if even the originators of it start in such an excessive way. If people are objecting to some images, either use WP:BRD or discuss it straightaway on the article talk page. A dedicated project for this seems like a POV-gathering, and the tagging of articles with this project is a suggestion that there is something wrong with the article, even where that's not the case at all. -- Fram (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They seem to be going too far in removing the nudity, Wikipedia isn't censored. We already have WP:BRD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly bad intent.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did not find any evidence of any improper acts by the project members. Find an image wrongly removed, then complain, but, at this point, I found no wrongfully removed images. Clearly then they have not "gone too far" if they have not done anything. I suppose the fact that this project is all of a single day old affects the ability to take umbrage at it. If you wish to change its focus, why not edit the project page instead of jumping to remove it? Collect (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Collectonian. The users attached to the project have responded positively to Fram so far. I suggest discussion on their talk page to circumscribe the remit of the project as much as possible. Then again, the project is basically redundant as I for one have never seen a sexual image used on an 'inappropriate' article. People have bodies, artists show those bodies, we shouldn't be censoring. //roux   16:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC) On second thought, delete per Wikipedia is not censored. //roux   22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any obvious and genuine problems of this nature already have plenty of outlets to report and act upon inappropriate sudden sexual images. No reason to have this one, and the (limited) use so far seems to suggest a full scale self-appointed censorship board. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I first encountered the project I thought it might be a troll. Though those involved do seem to genuine, the whole project is hopelessly misconceived. What is a good illustration varies from article to article and "unexpected nudity" a useless general criterion to apply generally (much historical and religious art contains surprising imagery which could do without being Bowdlerized). Even honing the criterion would only provide a pretext for censors without helping editors working on particular articles: illustrations from Teddy Bear and Mammary intercourse would be equally inappropriate on each other's pages and many shock images have no sexual content. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't usually participate in any XFDs, but when I saw a description of this project in the Community Portal, I immediately thought to myself, "Wow. I'm going to click on this link. Unless, by some highly unlikely twist of reality, something on the project page makes it clear to me that I have entirely misinterpreted the description presented in the Community Portal, I am going to nominate this page for deletion." I was pleasantly surprised to find that Fram had already done it for me.
Members/supporters of the project, you must know that I understand where you are coming from. In fact, I won't even attempt to convince you that nudity or censorship are good, bad, or anything in between. These are issues that each editor and user must consider on his or her own. Similarly, the issue of nudity should be dealt with on an individual basis. The decision to include or exclude nudity in a particular article should be made based on the specific situation regarding that particular article, not the entirety of Wikipedia.
My second point is that all WikiProjects (with rare exceptions) should work in the following way: A group of editors collaborate to improve a group of articles relating to subject matter with which they are familiar or comfortable. While they may create their own manuals of style to assist the contributors in writing effectively and to insure that the articles are consistent with each other, these manuals should not conflict with nor supercede Wikipedia's own Manual of Style in any way.
Removing or keeping nudity is a question that will come up time and time again. WikiProject Virgo, however, is not the answer. It is neither a group of editors with similar skills overseeing a group of related articles, nor is it an individualized discussion of the inclusion of specific instances of nudity in specific articles. By being neither of these things, I am of the firm belief that it should be deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reforming the project (day two)

edit

I am willing to work with the people. As no idea is perfect the first time around, neither was this one. I have since modified the project page. Mermaid and similar subjects are out of the question. The real purpose is not to rid the wiki of nudity, but to eliminate nudity from articles which can be accurately illustrated without using nudity. Please have another look at this project before deleting. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, there's actually nothing wrong with nudity. Wikipedia is not censored, and I'm sorry if you don't like seeing classic art, but... well, Wikipedia is not censored. //roux   22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem like strong arguments, but let me also point this out: Wikipedia is not free speech, either. Therefore, Wikipedia is censored. Unless you call reverting vandalism not censoring. If that's censoring, I'd better remove Twinkle from my account. Also, if there's "nothing wrong with nudity", why is it illegal to be naked in public in the U.S.? Why do so many religions condone nudity? Why do the major search engines like Yahoo!, Google, and Live have content filters on their image searches? Why has it been an issue on Wikipedia ever since the "Not Censored" was put in place at Wikipedia?
Regardless, I'd like to hear opinions on the revised page. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Not relevant to the instant discussion, but probably worthy of clarification.) There are plenty of places in the United States in which it's not categorically illegal to be naked in public; in some states, as Indecent exposure#Legal status in the United States explains, the state need make out an element of intentional titillation to seek criminal sanction (most in the US will recall, for instance, the well-reported Portland, Oregon, case of two months ago in which nude cycling undertaken as part of a protest [and so designed to shock,m as against to arouse] was found to be outside the scope of the state's public indecency laws). 68.248.233.189 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete revised page. The revised page is no improvement, and continues to violate Wikipedia policies against censorship. For example, one page that has been flagged by this project is Princess and dragon. Sure, the page contains nudity, because many classical depictions of damsels in distress contained nudity. It is not our place to cover up this fact by specifically searching out the depictions without nudity.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those who participated in this discussion, here is my message of resignation on maintaining Virgo:
The project was thought over in advance for about 24 hours, I decided it seemed like a good answer to part of a problem that has been argued at Wikipedia for some time now, and then I designed the project. No, I did not propose the project at the council, but that is because I was under the impression that was an optional step for anyone who wasn't sure whether a project should be started. It was a project I was sure would succeed, given the right contributors, and one that I saw a need for.
Immediately following the creation of the project, I made an announcement on the bulletin board and also made it a point to request that the WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality adopt the project as a child project. I did this because I wanted to be sure that there was enough support for the project to stand up in case it came to this; apparently it has not stood up at all, and has had very little support from anyone else. I honestly expected a little more support or even suggestions as to how to improve the project, but alas, the voice of the opposition is always the loudest, as in any case.
Since then, less than 48 hours have passed, the project page has undergone careful rewording and even an entire turn in its direction, and has actually gained a single member (who rarely edits at all, so I am surprised they joined any projects, quite frankly). It only took about a day before the article was flagged for deletion.
Many editors have expressed their concerns, and I have also reviewed Wikipedia's policy on pornography, which basically states there are only two reasons porn should be removed: (1) Child pornography, and (2) Jimbo says, neither of which are assumed to will have happened during the execution of Virgo, at least not the latter.
Now that the project's scope and purpose have been narrowed to avoid controversy, the project has been rendered nearly useless and would only be applicable in such rare cases that the idea of the project is laughable in itself, and not worthy of attention. Besides, it has received such a cold welcome that it worries me-- to stay behind this project could only strip any respect from other editors toward myself that may still exist. I do not want an argument such as what could have evolved from this controversy to place a barrier of distrust, grudges, or disrespect between anyone and myself. I am not angry, only frustrated.
I do hope that some day, someone might implement a filter that can be toggled on/off on a user's personal account settings to filter out different images which might have hidden tags, but this right now is too far away, and I don't have the experience I need to write such a program. Perhaps I will work on that project myself someday.
That said, I will hereby resign from this project.
Please smite with whatever pleasure it brings you:
I have cleaned up all other pages.
If you took the time to read this, thank you.
This WikiDragon is retreating back to the Tree of Life WikiProject where he belongs.
Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My support would be stronger if the creator of the project would consider becoming active in it again. I would request that the creator of the project consider returning to it as well; I might even join it myself. Yeah, I know, no surprise, the religion nut likes the idea of being able to remove nudity because of his puritanical tendencies. Well, that's not what I'm thinking. Personally, I have no reservations about seeing any image in our content, even the more graphic ones. But there can be and probably are several articles which contain images not because those images are necessarily the best possible images, but because they do a better job of satisfying someone's prurient interests. And we should acknowledge that we are currently one of the top 10 porn sites on the net. Some people probably choose to avoid using us on that basis, particularly parents with children they want to keep away from certain images or people who have religious objections to seeing certain images. I can reasonably see that we might benefit from having individuals check to see if, when we do use an image which some cultures object to or which a reasonable large group of people prefer to not expose their children to, or children who don't want to see them (I'm not expecting there to be many of the last option mentioned, but, hey, there might be a few), one or more other images which are satisfactory to people who object to such images. at least as satisfactory were around which didn't have the same potential objections. If there were to be no particular benefit in terms of quality by replacing one image which some might find objectionable with another which those parties wouldn't have reservations about, I can't see that would be a problem. I know that in several instances such would not be possible, like articles about given works of art or pieces of anatomy. But those might not be the only instances in which such potentially objectionable images appear. If, after discussion, the images are kept anyway, fine, no problem. But attempting to censor discussion about whether alternate acceptable images might be found or used seems to me to be just as censorious as some others are saying this project is. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the top 10 porn sites on the net"? Well, if, ummm, friends of me are looking for porn ;-), they don't usually end up here. Even the majority of our biographies of porn stars (M/F) contain no nudity. Second, I don't think anyone said that we should not have a discussion about any images, and I don't want to censor discussion. Having said that: could you give examples of articles you would target with this project? Because the two examples that kickstarted this project were not really promising. Fram (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, honestly, I can't think of any objectionable images, because this isn't really my field of expertise, I personally don't think in those terms very much anyway, and I've been less busy in general lately. I think the creator of this project, given his own interests, may have gone to those pages first because those are pages he has an interest in. And I know that we do a generally good job of trying to keep problematic images from appearing when we can. But we know that certain parties in the Arab world think less of us because of what they consider our porno photos, and other less vocal groups probably exist as well. I don't anticipate that this group would necessarily be one of the most active groups out there, and it may well be that it would work best as a subproject of another group. But I would personally like to see the idea a bit more of a chance to see if there is interest in it or just cause for it to exist before removing it. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a project started by someone targeting pages were there is actually no problem at all, and someone supporting the project but without actual pages where the project may be useful... I still don't see any reason to have this project, and without good counterexamples but only a theoretical discussion, I doubt I will change my mind. Fram (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am announcing plans for an add-on content filter, which a user can choose whether to implement, and which they can also customize. I would like to know if this violates Wikipedia's rules, and if so, what can be done to fix that. This is a serious project and if anyone is capable of improving it, be my guest. My goal is to design an optional content filter that does not violate Wikipedia's "do not censor" policy by not setting it active by default and requiring prospective users to install it on their accounts themselves. I plan later to announce this on one of the council pages, because I feel there is nothing wrong with it, since it will only affect users who opt in. Please read the page before you comment. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quite apart from other considerations, how would the pages be indicated? We're not about to mark our pages with "nude image" tags, nor is there going to be support for maintaining an on-wiki list of such pages. So it would have to be done off-wiki. Done off wiki, and implemented as a browser add on, and disseminated through whatever off-wiki method you please, there is nothing to stop you. You could even run a content fork if you chose to do so as a partial mirror. This is free content, and free means that you are free to use it and modify it for purposes of which I disapprove, or even purposes which the project's consensus disapproves. DGG (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid argument, I'll have to think about it for now. Any further comments on the add-on should be made on its talk page, as this space is concerning the old project. I mentioned it here only to let anyone participating in this discussion know. (I'll copy your question on that talk page, as it does require an answer. I'll answer it there when I have an answer.) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial suggestion that has never and will never gain traction with the community. Indeed, it was recently suggested (again) as an adjunct to the unbelievably misguided former version of Wikipedia:Sexual content fracas. Wikipedia is not censored. If you are worried about seeing boobies, stop looking at Wikipedia, to be blunt. //roux   10:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: seems to have been abandoned by the creator (see Bob the Wikipedian's comments above), and judging by the considerable opposition this has already produced, is unlikely to go anywhere. I agree with the other comments that this approach is not really in keeping with current Wikipedia policy and practice (see WP:NOTCENSORED). Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.