Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 1

message: While yes, this user said for the users to add his name to the list of members of the project, I am going to ask Link to add his own name in. I told the IRC people to stop adding his name in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALinkToThePast 

message: Please explain why Talk:Wicca needs a decency tag.
‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witch hunting 

message: *I BELIEVE THIS ONE ARTICLE HAS BECOME A NEXUS OF INAPROPRIATE PORNO GRAPHIC MATERIAL!! I SUGGEST ALL REAL MEMBERS OF WfD ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT OF THE VfD!!!!!! WE MUST SMITE OURSELVES FOR OUR SHAmEFUL NEXUSING OF PONOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF CLOATHED WOMEN!!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!!--205.188.116.14 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So....your plan to "unite" includes vandalizing my user talk page by declaing me immoral and that I am pure evil: . I would ask your members, Agriculture, to not attack me because I put the project up for deletion. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD UNITE!!!

message: Who in the hell (yes, I said it)  tagged hip hop with a "Wikipedians for Decency" tag? There's nothing obscene or offensive about the article, and as such, I am removing it. --FuriousFreddy 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hip hop]]? 

message: How about feeling free to oppose you?  The question of "decency" is so completely subjective that I find the idea of applying a standard for it incompatible with Wikipedia's most fundamental policy of maintaing a Neutral Point Of View.  This is as pointless as formulating a standard for political correctness, and almost as dangerous. Tverbeek 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "feel free to join us" 

message: This page is not silly enough. How can I be expected to read pages that are not silly? I demand the right to tag this page as insufficiently silly.--Gorgonzilla 22:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page is not silly enough

message: >"since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located..."
Florida's obscenity law specifically exempts works which, taken as a whole, contain "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". This clearly exempts Wikipedia since Wikipedia has literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Thus the Florida law is not specifically relevant for Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has said the same thing on the listserv. Kaldari 23:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How much would it cost to move the servers to California if it were? --Gorgonzilla 02:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I just note to all concerned, but there is a great big world out there that isn't just the 50 states ... and amazingly it does have the internet. WP already has sub-servers in other countries and whilst there may be an expectation that the main servers will remain in the USA (FLA) for the time being there is nothing that carves that in stone. --Vamp:Willow 09:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy disputed 

message: Its a very loaded word. Who gets to define it? Christians? Homophobes? horseboy 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Redrup from which that phrase wqas quoted, was overruled later, and the Miller test is now the key legal standard, and is tracked in the Florida law. Note also that the legal definitions are of "obscene" works. "Indecent", and a legal category, is no longer used. "Obscene" works (in the U.S.) are works which are not afforded first admendment protection, and which a govt is free to simply ban if it so chooses. DES (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Note also the description of the judgements under that standard, while it was in effect, (in The Bretheren by Woodward among other places). The 9 Justices could not generally agree on what was and was not "obscene" under that standard -- each had a personal standard, a PoV, and no two standards quite agreed. DES (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is decency 

message: I just read through the Florida decency law linked to on this page ().  Here are the two relevant definitions:
:(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it: 
::(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors; 
::(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and 
::(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
:[...]
:(10) "Obscene" means the status of material which:
::(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
 
::(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and 
::(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The argument then becomes whether or not a certain article or piece of media "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  I think it's interesting that "academic" and "informational" are left out here, but I think we can make a good argument that most of what you'll see on Wikipedia--including pictures of a man autofellating--have legitimate scientific value.  If attempting to document the whole of human knowledge isn't a scientific pursuit, I don't know what is. - Haunti 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question is whether or not the image, etc. is needed to explain or demonstrate the concept in question. Is is absolutely neccessary to show some of these items to explain what it is? How did people know about it prior to images being taken of it? -Visorstuff 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid question for Wikipedia overall. However, if that criterion is only going to be applied to so-called "offensive" images, I would be tempted to say that it is POV. - Haunti 17:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that, from a legal PoV, an image does not need to be needed to be protected. An image may have "value" if it helps make the meaning or content of the work clearer or more vivid, whether it is needed or not. Note also that the other key words are Taken as a whole. The case law on this is clear -- this means the whole work, not a single image or passage of text. In the Miller case, this meant that the entire book had to be judged as "without value" to be held as obscene. I strongly suspect (although I am not a lawyer, and there has never been a case quite like this as far as I know) that this would mean a judge would need to find that all of wikipedia lacked value before it could be held either obscene or "harmful to minors". At worst, it would mean an entire article including its images. DES (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida Law

message: I did some analysis of PICS and other content-tagging systems while developing Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging.  As far as I can tell, none of the existing systems is appropriate for Wikipedia: ICRA and the other systems that provide a vocabulary either require highly-subjective judgements ("is suitable for young children"), or lump our article on human sexual intercourse in the same category with the goatse.cx website.  PICS, as I recall, doesn't provide a vocabulary. --Carnildo 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With PICS you can roll your own label scheme. I didn't think much of RASCi or the others. In general it is best to have categories that are as descriptive as possible. I would suggest 'Nudity', 'Sexual Intercourse', 'Graphic, unsimulated Sexual Intercourse', 'Paraphillias' as a starting point. Tubgirl and Goatsex are objectively paraphillias. Same for the violence aspect. --Gorgonzilla 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest reading Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging, as most of the issues have been discussed there.  Tubgirl and Goatse may clearly be paraphilias, but what about :Image:Flogging demo folsom 2004.jpg?  Is Sexual Sadism a paraphilia?  If you tag it as such, I predict an edit war.  Is someone who is wearing nothing but a pair of high-heel shoes nude?  What about :Image:Flushvul.gif -- is she nude?  How about :Image:Spreizstange (Bondage) Model Dani.jpg?  She's clearly not nude.  If :Image:Relief1.jpg was a photograph, it would be hardcore pornography.  How would you classify it? --Carnildo 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PICS and other content-description systems

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Decent image proposal.  brenneman(t)(c) 09:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decent image proposal 

message: I've nominated this article for deletion as it violates Wiki policy. Gibadabmoob 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've de-nominated it.  It went through VfD less than a week ago. --Carnildo 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, wait a couple of months... then renominate it.Gateman1997 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violating NPOV 

message: So that editing on the main project page can resume, I've moved the membership list to its own page.  This project has gone through a trememdous amount of revision and controversy in the past few weeks.  The end result is that there are participants in the debate taking place on this and related pages concerned both about unwanted exposure to indecent images and text, and about censorship.  There are a number of impolite remarks on the existing membership roster, some of which are barbs related to the debate over the formation of this project.  There are also a number of resignations.
I was tempted simply to flush the whole thing, or to make it a straight list and remove comments.  But any such attempt to restore harmony here would be somewhat heavy-handed, and would somewhat ironically be open to accusations of censorship.  Something needs to be done, if only to reaffirm what standards of behavior you expect of people editing the list.  
Traditionally, WikiProjects have been rather self-selecting, so I would assume that unless there's a consensus here to establish a membership eligibility requirements, anyone is allowed to add themselves to the project, and no one is allowed to add or remove anyone but themselves.  When the membership list is unprotected, I propose a note to that effect be added to it.
As for whether to re-publish the membership list without comments, or to start over with a new list on the main page please take this opportunity to comment on whether or not this would be a good idea.  Sooner or later (after people will have had time to cool down), an admin is going to come along and by default just unprotect the list, so it becomes usable again. -- Beland 03:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the page.  Please be nice. -- Beland 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected membership page 

message: Although I admit having a few good laughs when reading the posts of a few fighting members, it is certain that both this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship have merit, since they actually document the very intimate details of the debate at hand.
Although I do not think a merge should happen, it is great for people of each party to be able to read and understand the opinions of eachother.  The delicate nature of the debate shows, as well as the emotions it can raise.  And, I can see links to technologic and other types of propositions...
This naturally merged as a result of free speech and international cooperation, and reviewing both articles from a bird's view, I think I'm willing to say Bravo to the wiki spirit as a whole :) --66.11.179.30 10:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of this article and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship]] 

message: Ugh, I've been archiving and sorting RfM for a while now. Unfortunately no one but a timestamp on the mediation for this project. Is mediation still desired? Is this project even running still? Please answer on my talk page, and if mediation is what you want, I'll assign someone. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Do Not Remove Any Names From The List Ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding me? 

message: Looks like were AfD again.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza</Sup></font> 17:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some kind of law which says you cannont nominate the same project multiple times? Banes 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You just can't renominate quickly, but the old VFD was months ago. This AFD is for a new reason... inactivity.Gateman1997 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Why are those against censorship active, but this group isn't? There's something "fishy goin' on" around here! Now someone tell me the meaning of POV! Эйрон Кинни 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? A good guess would be that this project has "died" due to lack of support. Banes 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are those.... 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: You are mostly above me here, so this should be a simple question for those few of you still monitoring this page. Occasionally, someone will use a four letter word (some are longer!  :) and be quoted in the press. While Wikipedia may not be censored, the press often is. So when quoting this publicized remark, are editors 1) allowed, 2) required or 3) disallowed from emending the edited remark in the paper (which is used as a reference). For example, if I quote Rhett as saying that he (frankly) doesn't give a d***, must I emend this to read "damn?" Or am I merely allowed to do that? Or must I use the exact quote from the paper (which contains asterisks)? Student7 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Four letter words

message: If the project is entirely focussed on "public decency issues", then it shouldn't be dressed up as a general project for monitoring and regulating the more vague notion of "encyclopedic merit".
I understand that some people might have been put off from joining unless the title of the project was more "veiled", but that's not an excuse for mislabeling, and frankly, the new title is dishonest. It's dishonest in terms of public presentation, it's dishonest in terms of how wikipedia projects are supposed to be run, and its also academically dishonest. 
Personally, I'd regard anyone who'd stay with the project after this renaming stunt as being somewhat morally and ethically suspect, and I guess it's to the credit of some of the original members that they seem to have baled, because they don't want to be associated with it. 
Euphemisms, in the history of censorship, have a somewhat unfortunate track record. If you want to impose a set of rules on other people for censoring free speech, then your first obligation is to be honest about what you're doing. The dishonest censor can use their censorship powers to hide their own dishonesty, so for a lot of people, anyone putting themselves up as a public censor has to be utterly squeaky-clean. If you can't be honest even in your group's name, and you're showing yourself to be prepared to be dishonest as a way of achieving objectives, then people will suspect that perhaps you might have ulterior objectives and motivations that you're also not being honest about. Asking for powers to set rules in place, while being less than accurate about how those rules are presented, sets a precedent for corruption. 
Public decency guidelines also apply to the act of censorship itself. If you want to do something in public, to other people, without their consent, but you're too embarrassed to admit what you're actually doing, and feel the need to misrepresent it as something else, then chances are you probably shouldn't be doing it. ErkDemon (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project title fails wikipedia conventions for accuracy and honesty 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!