Disputatio Vicipaediae:Imagines in disputatione

    E Vicipaedia

    Policy[fontem recensere]

    Since this topic is coming up over and over again, shoudl we perhaps come up with some sort of policy? It seems like the most logical way to handle it is by voting. --Iustinus 00:04, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I was thinking this myself.
    1. All pages shall have an image if possible.
    2. If there is an image which someone thinks is offensive, there shall be a straight vote. Parties may attempt to persuade if they like, but don't expect a response, just expect a vote.
    --Ioshus (disp) 00:11, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How do other wikis answer demands for self-censorship? IacobusAmor
    I was more thinking of rules what - in any case - shall not be seen as offending, e. g. pictures which are older than - let's say - 100 years. --Rolandus 17:12, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Proposed rules for images[fontem recensere]

    Please add your proposals. Basic rules at the top. --Rolandus 10:34, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. All pages shall have one or more images if possible.
    2. The default policy is: Images shall not be hidden.
    3. The default policy is: An image is not offensive.
    4. Images of things created more than 70 years ago (the 70 years are taken from page en:copyright) are not, merely by their nature, to be seen as offending. Examples: antique mosaics, ceramics, sculptures, paintings ; depictions of crucifixions, gladiatorial shows, and other kinds of torture & killing (e.g., the photo of the death-by-firing-squad that's already in the article Iosephus Recidivus ; illustrations of guillotinings during the French Revolution, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the shooting of Mexican emperor Maximilian); cartoons, including those of political & religious figures ; and drawings, paintings, & sculptures by modern artists (e.g., Picasso, Klimt, Schiele).
    5. Sexuality is not offending.

    Quaestiones, dicta, opiniones[fontem recensere]

    What about recent photos of dead bodies? and the hanging of Saddamus Hussein? (Newsweek, a general-interest magazine, has printed photos of these.) What about recent controversial cartoons, as of political & religious figures? IacobusAmor 16:04, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Eesh, the first one is tough. As for the Jyllands-Posten thing, if that's what you're getting at, we have that displayed, and I think rightly so. you need to have the image there to discuss its impact, and the fallout after it. But back to Saddamus, I don't think, unless we have an article explicitly on his execution, that we need to display such a picture. But if we did have such an article...ack that's hard. It was pretty barbaric, but I think maybe we need to be ok about that. We should not hide what is/was the truth. For instance, I think very much we should have pictures on Darfur for example, in order to display the truth about the world. Truth is hardly always beautiful, and we should be able to expose it as such. By that logic I would argue for the aforementioned execution photo. If it is displayed, there can be compelling stimulus to match the sentiment expressed by countless nations, condemning the action. I don't think we should ever hide from images, but avoid gratuitousness (ie, a Pompeiian frescoe of cunnilinctio at a Latin wikipedia is NOT gratuitous). The images that are picked shall then be explained as what they are, and sentiments from both sides can be presented.
    We also forget that we have this {{celare}} template which does just the opposite of {{monstrare}} template, so people may hide what they wish. This seems more in the spirit of an encyclopaedia (which should not compromise its integrity ad animos teniores vulnerandi vitandum).--Ioshus (disp)

    Praeferentiae meae[fontem recensere]

    Maybe not everybody knows about this:

    When an image uses the "thumb" parameter without an explicit width, the image is shown either with the default width (I think this is 180 px) or the width a registered user has set in his "Praeferentiae meae --> Fasciculi --> Magnitudo pollicisunguis". So, if someone is anxious about being offended by images which he thinks are offending, he can eliminate his risk this way. I think a thumbnail with 120 px can be hardly offending since you cannot see much. --Rolandus 17:03, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    That's a neat trick. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gratias, Rolande ! IacobusAmor 17:49, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]