Talk:Arachnophobia/Archived talks about spider images

message: Considering the nature of the article, maybe there shouldn't be spider pictures in this discussion section.  Just a thought.
Umm.. yes please. I am not aware of how things work on discussion pages (and in editing wikipedia in general) so I won't try it. If this causes problems because encyclopedic content should have pictures, wouldn't a link to spiders with "see images here" somewhere do the job? Are there pictures of murdered people in the murder article/discussion? 70.82.212.148 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not 'a picture of a spider' on this (the Talk) page, but a template of the WikiProject Spiders that links the Arachnophobia page to the project. And, of course, the template contains pictures of spiders, just as a template for WikiProject Lepidoptera contains pictures of butterflies. There is no picture of spiders on the Arachnophobia page itself, and that's ok. but this template should not be removed, and we will certainly not change the template just because of this reason. I think the best way to proceed for arachnophobes is certainly to turn off image display in their browser. This is not to belittle phobics. but extreme arachnophobes (those that even panic when they see a tiny picture) *are* a very small minority, and there is an easy remedy (turn off pictures). in my browser (opera) it just takes one single mouse click. check out this list of phobias (i personally know ornithophobes and one very strong tonitrophobe). if we try to make it right for everybody we'll make it right for nobody. it's similar to allergies. should there be no milk/peanut/sesame/onion/etc. in industrial food because a small minority cannot eat it? --Sarefo 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mild arachnaphobe with some common sense and consideration, mostly. The picture does not serve as an illustration of arachnaphobia any more than a picture of skydiving would serve as an illustration of acrophobia, though I'm sure it does an excellent job of deterring or otherwise making uncomfortable true arachnaphobes without presenting any tangible benefit. 209.107.107.45 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is an illustration of arachnophobia. Your example is faulty, acrophobes do not afraid skydivers and I strongly suspect they are not afraid of pictures of skyscrapers either.  `'mikkanarxi 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, replace skydiving with a panoramic view of a countryside. Better yet, tell me what about arachnophobia is actually illustrated by a picture of a spider, how is it essential to the article. Who doesn't actually know what a spider is? If it was on a phobia of a specific variety of spider, sure, but for spiders in general, it is sort of, well, useless. 70.65.133.246 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below about the target audience. If a non-arachnophobe like myself wanted to read about arachnophobia and learn about arachnophobia, then it's much easier if there's a good illustration of the cause. The article discusses the possibility of the human brain sees faces and other body parts in discomforting juxtaposition in the body of a spider, and it's much easier to imagine that when given a picture to work with. Yes (almost) everyone knows what a spider looks like, but we still illustrate the article spider. It may be insensitive to put pictures of spiders in this article, but it's not "useless". --Stemonitis 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your justifications do not follow your suggestions for alternate photos well or at all. Furthermore, given the variety of spider appearances and the dubiousness of the trivia, a vanilla picture of a spider is all but completely ineffective in illustrating that point. 70.65.141.113 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please engage in discussion before imposing your point of view, in order to prevent edit warring; I have restored the image. If a consensus of general editors (i.e. not just arachnophobes) is for removal of the image, then so be it, but until that has been demonstrated, the article should not be changed. Even better, work on finding a photo that better illustrates arachnophobia. --Stemonitis 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of people who have voiced an opinion thus far seem to oppose your viewpoint as it stands, I'd suggest you stop reverting things to suit your own tastes. 70.65.141.113 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But curiously, there seems to be a discrepancy between established users arguing in one direction and IP addresses which have only ever been used to edit this article arguing in the other. I wouldn't go as far as Mikkalai and call it "trolling", but I don't see that the opinions of the two groups of people can really be afforded equal weight (yet). It's perhaps unfair, but people who have shown a continuing desire to improve the encyclopaedia tend to get listened to more than people at IP addresses who only seem interested in making a single point. --Stemonitis 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the number of people opining the removal of the picture in the talk page is... drastically... out of sync with your claims. (I had not looked at editing records, given their lack of reliability for distinguishing individuals). 70.65.141.113 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that determining the number of people is difficult when there are lots of anonymous editors involved. The picture has almost always been removed by anonymous editors (who we simplistically assume are not as well aware of policies and guidelines as more established editors) and has generally been replaced by registered users with many edits (including admins). In general, when determining consensus on Wikipedia, (primarily) single-use accounts tend to be discounted, which helps to protect the site against wilful abuse. I'm not suggesting that anyone is wilfully abusing this page, by the way, just trying to explain the background. --Stemonitis 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the fairly recent nature of the issues with the page and the length of time comments on the topic go back, I'd venture that it would be presumptuous to disregard the other users' opinions in this case, especially given their given restraint towards editing the article before consensus is achieved. While admins have been active in restoring the page, the number has been few and fairly consistant patrons, and Wikipedia itself views administrators as trusted custodians, not superior users. Ilurker 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong: I wasn't suggesting that admins are better or above the law or anything, just that they of all people should be aware of policies and practices in a way that new users might not. Nice that you've chosen to create an acount - welcome! --Stemonitis 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The account is ancient, I'm just criminally lazy and never remember to log on. Ilurker 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isnt my POV or Opinion, Its obvious a page about arachnophobia shouldnt have a picture of a spider on it. If you want to see a picture of a spider, you should look elsewhere. --Dallin Tanjo22 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any problem with spiders, but when I first saw this page I giggled thinking that there is a wikipedia page about the phobia of spiders with a picture if a big spider. Let's just say it's probably put a few people off further reading of this article.
I would like to offer an additional opinion on this matter from an arachnophobic point of view. As expected, I am in favor of removing the spider picture from the front page. My reasoning is this: The picture causes harm to a certain percentage of the readers, specifically those with the greatest interest (A personal one) in the article. The point of this article is to discuss the concept of arachnophobia. Not to cure it, not to talk about how little sense it makes, and not to purposefully inflict un-needed pain, trauma, or discomfort on any of our readers; no matter how small the percentage may be. 
As another example, placing a flashing gif on the Photosensitive epilepsy page may be a perfect way to describe the phenomenon, but the damage it causes  certain readers is not worth its descriptive value.
When I read this article, I held up a sheet of paper over the image (Yet was still nervous that my fingers were on the same side as the photo) The trick worked and I was able to read the article but the picture is certainly a barrier to entry for those more seriously afflicted then I. For those who spend the most time on this article, think of yourselves as architects. You have a responsibility to make your work as accessible as possible to the public, even those with disabilities. 
It may be because of my fear of spiders, but I also don't gain much information on arachnophobia by a spider photograph. How does the photograph describe the fear, does it address the interaction between man and spider, etc.   A more informative picture would be one of a person holding a spider or as Stemonitis suggests, an illustration of the offending parts. (Face and leg movement for myself) 
If this idea is something that people feel seriously about, I may be able to provide an illustration of this type. Mishaneah 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to remove the spider pictures in the discussion section

message: Censorship will not be allowed. If we start doing this on slight whims, we will end in deletion half of articles.
I have strong impression that all this about picture is trolling. An acute arachnophobe shoul seek medical attention, not to keep peeking into this page to remove the image. I think the person who is doing this is not an archnophobe but an arachnomasochist or troll. `'mikkanarxi 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mild arachnaphobe with some common sense and consideration, mostly. The picture does not serve as an illustration of arachnaphobia any more than a picture of skydiving would serve as an illustration of acrophobia, though I'm sure it does an excellent job of deterring or otherwise making uncomfortable true arachnaphobes without presenting any tangible benefit. 209.107.107.45 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is an illustration of arachnophobia. Your example is faulty, acrophobes do not afraid skydivers and I strongly suspect they are not afraid of pictures of skyscrapers either.  `'mikkanarxi 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, replace skydiving with a panoramic view of a countryside. Better yet, tell me what about arachnophobia is actually illustrated by a picture of a spider, how is it essential to the article. Who doesn't actually know what a spider is? If it was on a phobia of a specific variety of spider, sure, but for spiders in general, it is sort of, well, useless. 70.65.133.246 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below about the target audience. If a non-arachnophobe like myself wanted to read about arachnophobia and learn about arachnophobia, then it's much easier if there's a good illustration of the cause. The article discusses the possibility of the human brain sees faces and other body parts in discomforting juxtaposition in the body of a spider, and it's much easier to imagine that when given a picture to work with. Yes (almost) everyone knows what a spider looks like, but we still illustrate the article spider. It may be insensitive to put pictures of spiders in this article, but it's not "useless". --Stemonitis 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your justifications do not follow your suggestions for alternate photos well or at all. Furthermore, given the variety of spider appearances and the dubiousness of the trivia, a vanilla picture of a spider is all but completely ineffective in illustrating that point. 70.65.141.113 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please engage in discussion before imposing your point of view, in order to prevent edit warring; I have restored the image. If a consensus of general editors (i.e. not just arachnophobes) is for removal of the image, then so be it, but until that has been demonstrated, the article should not be changed. Even better, work on finding a photo that better illustrates arachnophobia. --Stemonitis 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of people who have voiced an opinion thus far seem to oppose your viewpoint as it stands, I'd suggest you stop reverting things to suit your own tastes. 70.65.141.113 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But curiously, there seems to be a discrepancy between established users arguing in one direction and IP addresses which have only ever been used to edit this article arguing in the other. I wouldn't go as far as Mikkalai and call it "trolling", but I don't see that the opinions of the two groups of people can really be afforded equal weight (yet). It's perhaps unfair, but people who have shown a continuing desire to improve the encyclopaedia tend to get listened to more than people at IP addresses who only seem interested in making a single point. --Stemonitis 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the number of people opining the removal of the picture in the talk page is... drastically... out of sync with your claims. (I had not looked at editing records, given their lack of reliability for distinguishing individuals). 70.65.141.113 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that determining the number of people is difficult when there are lots of anonymous editors involved. The picture has almost always been removed by anonymous editors (who we simplistically assume are not as well aware of policies and guidelines as more established editors) and has generally been replaced by registered users with many edits (including admins). In general, when determining consensus on Wikipedia, (primarily) single-use accounts tend to be discounted, which helps to protect the site against wilful abuse. I'm not suggesting that anyone is wilfully abusing this page, by the way, just trying to explain the background. --Stemonitis 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the fairly recent nature of the issues with the page and the length of time comments on the topic go back, I'd venture that it would be presumptuous to disregard the other users' opinions in this case, especially given their given restraint towards editing the article before consensus is achieved. While admins have been active in restoring the page, the number has been few and fairly consistant patrons, and Wikipedia itself views administrators as trusted custodians, not superior users. Ilurker 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong: I wasn't suggesting that admins are better or above the law or anything, just that they of all people should be aware of policies and practices in a way that new users might not. Nice that you've chosen to create an acount - welcome! --Stemonitis 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The account is ancient, I'm just criminally lazy and never remember to log on. Ilurker 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isnt my POV or Opinion, Its obvious a page about arachnophobia shouldnt have a picture of a spider on it. If you want to see a picture of a spider, you should look elsewhere. --Dallin Tanjo22 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any problem with spiders, but when I first saw this page I giggled thinking that there is a wikipedia page about the phobia of spiders with a picture if a big spider. Let's just say it's probably put a few people off further reading of this article.
I would like to offer an additional opinion on this matter from an arachnophobic point of view. As expected, I am in favor of removing the spider picture from the front page. My reasoning is this: The picture causes harm to a certain percentage of the readers, specifically those with the greatest interest (A personal one) in the article. The point of this article is to discuss the concept of arachnophobia. Not to cure it, not to talk about how little sense it makes, and not to purposefully inflict un-needed pain, trauma, or discomfort on any of our readers; no matter how small the percentage may be. 
As another example, placing a flashing gif on the Photosensitive epilepsy page may be a perfect way to describe the phenomenon, but the damage it causes  certain readers is not worth its descriptive value.
When I read this article, I held up a sheet of paper over the image (Yet was still nervous that my fingers were on the same side as the photo) The trick worked and I was able to read the article but the picture is certainly a barrier to entry for those more seriously afflicted then I. For those who spend the most time on this article, think of yourselves as architects. You have a responsibility to make your work as accessible as possible to the public, even those with disabilities. 
It may be because of my fear of spiders, but I also don't gain much information on arachnophobia by a spider photograph. How does the photograph describe the fear, does it address the interaction between man and spider, etc.   A more informative picture would be one of a person holding a spider or as Stemonitis suggests, an illustration of the offending parts. (Face and leg movement for myself) 
If this idea is something that people feel seriously about, I may be able to provide an illustration of this type. Mishaneah 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The image will stay

message: I have to admit, even as an arachnophobic I had to laugh at the "im gonna get you" comment under the picture in the page history.
:Even though they were in poor taste, I have to admit it was funny myself. Stormscape 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heh