Wiktionary:Votes/2015-06/Collapsing offensive images

Collapsing offensive images

 * Voting on: Images that may be offensive or obscene, chiefly to anglophone cultural sensibilities, would be collapsed by default on the page so that a user would have to click them to be able to view them, with a warning that they may be offensive or NSFW (as appropriate for the image in question). This is not censorship, because nothing would be removed from entries or the dictionary as a whole, but instead those who do not wish to see such images would not have to, should they wish to navigate to that page (e.g. to read another language's L2 section with a non-offensive meaning). Editors may collapse images at will if they do so in good faith, but if any debate or disagreement about whether or not to collapse an individual image ensues, the issue would be subject to community consensus.


 * Vote started: 00:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:Beer parlour/2015/May
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:Beer parlour/2006/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:Grease pit/2013/January
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-06/Collapsing offensive images

Support

 * 1) . If anyone is so desperate to see pictures of penises, vaginas and people with their heads blown to bits that they will feel censored by having to click one more time, then perhaps an online dictionary is not what they are looking for. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The reader gets the freedom to choose. --ContraVentum (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote withdrawn. --ContraVentum (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Just seems reasonable, I guess, pictures aren't the main purpose of a dictionary anyway. It'd be better to make NSFW pictures just slightly harder to see in exchange for making the project as a whole much easier to use in schools and other sensitive places. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  In my view, the goal of Wiktionary is to provide its information efficiently and intelligently to its users. Whenever we make a policy change, we should ask ourselves: how will this affect the users' ability to use this site?
 * In this case, we have on the one hand users that may shy away from certain entries (or the site altogether) because they are worried that they would be exposed to images that would be unpleasant for them to see. On the other hand, we have users who are not squeamish about such images, and it is conceivable that image illustrations sometimes could be really useful in conveying what the definition of the sense actually says: maybe a direct translation between language A and English is not possible. In this case, drawings could be a good substitute; but if we don't have a drawing but an image, we would be limiting ourselves if we didn't use the image - so there is an argument to use the image. A compromise is to use the image but to make it collapse by default.
 * A second vote could establish something like a preference for drawings rather than images; which could be a better option, but I don't see any harm in a guideline like this (it does not say we should use such images, only how they are presented if we do), so therefore I support it. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Njardarlogar, in the mindset of This, that and the other. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  If we have the picture at all, we should show it uncollapsed, IMHO. I support removing some less acutely relevant pictures, and replacing some photographs with drawings, as long as there is no loss in illustrative ability, as I did at bra in . Wikipedia does fine with having no images collapsed at Penis and the like. Wikipedia also does fine with having no images collapsed at Rorschach test, heated discussions of which you can find in the archives of W:Talk:Rorschach test; see also W:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. What DP said. Either remove the image entirely or switch it to something less objectionable. — Keφr 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Excessive.  Also, unnecessary to vote on; should be discussed image-by-image. Pur ple back pack 89   22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  per DP. --Daniel 15:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  —  קהת — 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) . --Simboyd (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I'd rather see us using our editorial judgment to avoid needlessly graphic imagery. A dictionary can get its point across well without using graphic NSFW-type imagery - for example, using informative diagrams instead of photographs - although there may be vanishingly rare exceptions (can't think of any offhand) where it may be necessary to include graphic images. While some Wikipedians get a bit over-exuberant over the idea that the encyclopedia is not censored, I think as lexicographers we can afford to be a little more modest, while still not actually "censoring" anything. This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Vote fails 4-6-1 DCDuring TALK 00:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)