Chacham's Journal: Chronicle: Left wikipedia.

I have left Wikipedia due to the offensive image policy. After looking up circumcision and being greeted by a picture of a phallus, searching the talk pages and finding out about similar cases, going to the village pump and finding out that tagging pictures is not considered NPOV, i spent some time thinking, and realized the Wikipedia simply wasn't for me.

Oh well, it's a nice idea, but perverts shall be perverts. Not allowing a _tag_, just a simple little tag for those who will find such images offensive, when there is a clearly a significant group of people who feel that way, makes me question what their point is. A tag plus a preference would allow both positions to co-exist, and to not allow tags is exactly not the NPOV they say it is. Oh well, perverts shall be perverts. It just ain't the place for me.

Leaving means i typed in "random" letters, copied & pasted it as my new password, and then copied something else and removed the source. The password must be fifty or so characters, so it's pretty much gone. I deleted my email address first.

NPOV

[rholliday]

It seems to me that "representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias" [Wikipedia NPOV [wikipedia.org]] would include the Conventional Wisdom of warning about potentially offensive pictures. I can where a zealot might proclaim that gives unfair bias to those who say the pictures are offensive, but everyone else would realize that children use encyclopedias, too. And maybe not all of them instantly click anything that says "mature" ... but that's likely just wishful thinking.

I applaud your bravery

Re:NPOV

[Chacham]

Thanx. :)

Actually, the mature thing to do is not to burn the bridges. However, i checked the FAQ to find out how to delete the account, and it said i couldn't but instead to do what i did.

Re:NPOV

[Libby Liberal]

...would include the Conventional Wisdom of warning about potentially offensive pictures.

Graphic imagery warnings are not part of the article, so they do not fall under the NPOV guidelines. When tagging potentially offensive imagery, it's a simple matter of using common sense.

For example, the majority of Wikipedia users can be reasonably expected to find the content of shock sites "offensive" because of both the content and the intended purpose in displaying the content.

However, I doubt many people will hav

Re:NPOV

[rholliday]

I don't pretend to be fully cognizant of what should or should not be included under the NPOV regulations, but it appears that you are saying graphical image warnings are a place where bias can show through. I do not recall ever having seen a warning on Wikipedia pictures, so I have no basis for comparison. When you say "turn off your images" I assume you mean in your browser, but if there is that feature available in Wikipedia that is an acceptable option to me.

Who defines "potentially offensive" has a

Re:NPOV

[Libby Liberal]

Do you have an issue with Google and their "Safe Search" options?

Google never has, and never will make any pretense of being unbiased. They're a company, and they're catering to the demands of their customers - people who want to be able to search for "magna cum laude" without being subjected to thirty two pages of unrelated pornography.

To that end I feel there should be tools in place for the person or their guardian to filter.

There are countless filters that allow you to censor incoming content in various

Re:NPOV

[rholliday]

You have some good points there. I still think a content provider should offer filtering tools as a service, but it is a person's own responsibility to handle the situation ultimately, you are correct.

I don't fully agree with everything you say, but I find it hard to refute, as well. I like that. :)