Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote

Image should be inline

1. Inline; have seen it many times. It's relevant and not a copyvio (fair use applies). Removing it would be POV. It should be noted that I am not trolling; I truly believe this. Alexa includes a similar screenshot on their site. --SPUI (talk) 03:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Inline. Have seen the image. Whether it is offensive or intended to be offensive is irrelevant. How does something being intentionally offensive preclude its use on Wikipedia? We're documenting the web site (which is intended to be offensive) and yet not the image? For what it's worth, the image was of the web site, rather than hello.jpg itself. - Vague | Rant 04:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
3. Definitely informative. Keep in mind we present information here, not censor it. This support is of course contingent on Wikipedia actually being able to assert a fair use claim on the image, which I think is possible. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   This is an issue of decorum, not censorship. There is no serious opposition to the inclusion of links to the image, only to the insertion of an image deliberately designed to shock and horrify (rather than inform and enlighten) the viewer. jdb ❋ 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4. Inline. I have seen it many times, both intentionally and by accident (ie, through trolls). The version of the page linked to above is fine. The image is small enough to not be so shocking as visiting the actual website. I think the shock value increases exponentially as the size of the image increases. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-7 23:32 Z

   Well, then we'd be depriving users of the experience of stumbling on the full-sized image for themselves. (In which case, we should include a spoiler warning.) jdb ❋ 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

5. Inline. Agree with Vague. --gcbirzan^talk 11:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Inline. No cultural POV. --Oldak Quill 22:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Inline. I agree with Markaci that the shock value increases exponentially as the size increases. The first time I saw the goatse image, it was the full-size version at Goatse.cx, which was a bit startling. A thumbnail doesn't shock much of anyone, so people can choose not to click "Enlarge" or go to goat.cx and its mirrors. If you don't want to see goatse.cx, don't go to a goatse.cx article. If you don't want to see a clitoris, don't go to a clitoris article. If you don't want to see autofellatio, don't go to an autofellatio article. Guanaco 02:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Two thoughts: First, what proportion of readers of Clitoris or Autofellatio have a good idea of what those things are? Probably most. (I'd expect that more than half of the readers of Clitoris do, since about half the population have one.) On the other hand, "Goatse.cx" is deliberately somewhat obscure to people who have not seen the site. The article is not entitled Gaping anus; if it were, comparison to Clitoris would be indeed apt.

   Second, goatse is famous for being foisted on people who didn't want to see it. This is a well-known and continuing trolling behavior on lots of forums. Thus, we can reasonably expect that this behavior will continue -- viz. that a goatse image on Wikipedia will be used by goatse trolls as a way of showing it to people who don't want to see it. This is my concern about Wikipedia ending up participating in trolling behavior when really we just want to report on it.

   It would seem to me that both of these points weaken the (usually perfectly sensible) position that people who view article X should expect to see X. --FOo 16:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Your first point is sound, but not your second. There are so many places with hello.jpg and so many ways to obfuscate a url that hosting the image on Wikipedia does not give goatse fans anything they didn't already have. foobaz·✐ 20:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8. Inline, I agree with Guanaco. Inter 12:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Inline. The Alexa screenshot convinced me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Inline I've seen the pic on several occasions. Tuf-Kat 18:48, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
11. Inline, although I shall choose to avoid the article whatsoever. --Ryan! | Talk 20:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
12. Inline Beta m (talk) 18:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
13. Inline Christiaan 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Inline. User:Curps's argument on Talk:Autofellatio was persuasive. The article is all about an image, how can we not include it?? -Lethe | Talk 11:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
15. Inline. Image improves the information content of the article, and that's all that matters. People who are offended by images can configure their browser not to display images. —AlanBarrett 10:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Inline. WP:NOT#CENSOR Quite simply, this is a good chance for Wiki to prove that we are not censoring hypocrites.

Image should be inline but not at the top

Use a link

1. This image should still be available to our fearless readers. However, we need to do that without offending people with an image whose purpose is to offend. Vacuum c 14:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as only an external link

1. I have seen this photo, and while not at all sickened by it, I feel it is clearly neither suitable nor necessary here. Look at the number of external links to the image at the bottom of the article - if somone wants to see the image it's not exactly obscure. Mark 03:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Goatse is not and never will be appropriate for display in Wikipedia (plus it'll be used for vandalism). — Dan | Talk 03:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • The penis pictures that were apparently used to vandalise the front page are still here. Being used for vandalism is a bad argument. --SPUI (talk) 03:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
     • Yes, it's a terrible argument. There are tons of images on Wikipedia that could be used for vandalism. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 03:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
4. Shanes 03:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Ambi 03:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. I have seen it. Curps 03:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Rhobite 03:32, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
8. UtherSRG 03:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
9. There are plenty of references to the image in the external links. It isn't precisely difficult to find. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. The article should not be about the image itself, but about its use as a shock site and an internet phenomenon. foobaz·✐ 03:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. I've seen both goatse images ("giver" and "receiver", I believe they're called). What distinguishes these images, in their context, from the controversial images at Clitoris and elsewhere is that the purpose of the goatse images is to offend, not to inform. The images are not merely accidentally or incidentally offensive to some; rather, goatse is well-known precisely for being a tool to offend people. Specifically, it is famous for being posted or linked on Web sites for the purpose of offending. Since we are, after all, editing a Web site (which is also an encyclopedia, yes) it would be difficult to see how we could post this material without (effectively) adopting that goal, which is not what Wikipedia is here for. --FOo 03:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Hmmm, that's an interesting distinction, one which might be able to be NPOV. Maybe it should be proposed as policy, to provide a clear policy on stuff like this. --SPUI (talk) 05:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    True, the purpose of the image is to offend; however, the "fad" has become noteworthy enough to merit an article, to inform about it; likewise, the image now becomes informative. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    So you're saying that anything that was is well-known precisely for being a tool to offend people doesn't belong on Wikipedia? Or just that such articles can't have relevant pictures which depict them? --gcbirzan^talk 11:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Not quite. I'm saying that the point of goatse is to show it to people who don't want to see it -- crudely, to troll with it -- and that putting the image in Wikipedia is likely to fulfil that goal. To do so could be, in effect, adopting the troll POV, so to speak. --FOo 22:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    For the record, I'm pretty sure the name for the Gay Nigger Association of America was chosen partly to cause offense (after seeing the movie Gayniggers from Outer Space). Does that mean we shouldn't refer to said name here? --SPUI (talk) 11:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    For the record, I think Wikipedia articles about trolling behaviors (and about other sorts of fame- or attention-seeking behaviors) need to be very careful that they do not go over the line into promoting the troll. Wikipedia needs to be able to report on trolling without itself being an avenue of trolling -- just as we need to (e.g.) report on advertising campaigns and product hype without promoting them. This isn't just about gaping anuses -- see, e.g. the issues around including corporate logos in Wikipedia articles. --FOo 22:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

12. External link — Davenbelle 03:47, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
13. I've seen the photo. I don't think the photo would add anything to the article; however, I think the hyperlinks to the goatse-related sites should be made active. Should the image be added to Wikipedia, it should be added inline. --Carnildo 03:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • At the least the links should be active. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. I am usually not squeamish about visuals in Wikipedia, but this one is way over the line. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
15. I agree with FOo above. I have seen the image.-gadfium 04:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Wikipedia is not a shock site. jdb ❋ 04:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
17. I would delete this whole article. Little educational value. (Please don't change my vote) —Cantus…☎ 04:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
18. Duh. (And yes. Who hasn't?) —Korath (Talk) 05:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
19. Agree with FOo's assessment. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. RickK 06:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not. I believe this article should have a screenshot. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --SPUI (talk) 06:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

21. Jmabel | Talk 07:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
22. I've seen the photo. Keep it external, for the same reasons we don't have screenshots of ebay or Amazon.com - linking to them is far more useful and illustrative. LizardWizard 07:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
23. I've seen the image and I agree with User:FOo. Intentional offensive images have no place on Wikipedia. If it's linked after all, I would not like to see it at the top of the page. Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
24. WP is an encyclopedia, not a shocksite. jni 08:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • We are an encyclopaedia; as such our purpose is to present information, not censor it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Blankfaze, I agree with you in principle; however, the reality is that if Wikipedia becomes a cache of explicit pictures, it will effectively be censored when every school site, business, and organization puts wikipedia.org on their filter list along with all the other porn sites. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 17:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
25. obviously. I know it's difficult to draw a line, but draw a line we must, and it will clearly be this side of goatse, and as far as I'm concerned, also this side of autofellatio. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. This picture is only notable because so many people have been tricked into seeing it - lets not make Wikipedia another place for those juvenile games Trödel|talk 18:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (and by the way I have seen it and the screenshot)

    That's exactly my point above. It isn't about drawing a line between images that are "too offensive to be on Wikipedia" and those that are not. It's certainly not about avoiding reporting on offensive behavior. It's about Wikipedia having no business participating in a fad whose avowed purpose is to offend people. To make an analogy: Wikipedia can (and must) discuss the phenomenon of trolling without engaging in it; can (and must) discuss the phenomenon of libel without libelling anyone; and likewise Wikipedia can (and must) discuss the phenomenon of foisting goatse on people without participating in it. --FOo 02:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Just as Wikipedia can (and must) discuss the phenomenon of wikis without participating in it. --SPUI (talk) 05:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    That's silly. Wikipedia is designed to be a wiki, and is not designed to be a shock site. FOo's point is that we showing the image, Wikipedia is doing something, not just describing it. He's not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't do anything. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:27, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

27. There should be an option to make this image visible to people who want to see any image. This will require a change in the mediawiki software. Until then, we need to keep some level of standards and decency. Samboy 21:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
28. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. This image is easily available for anyone who actually wants to see it; no need for Wikipedia to host it. Isomorphic 17:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:George W. Bush.jpeg is easily available for anyone who actually wants to see it. Why do we host it? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Offsite. Keeping a copy insite is inviting more vandalism. The image is used for its shock value, and I don't want to be the admin going around reverting anyone using [[Image:Goatse.cx screenshot.jpg]] on featured articles and such. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. Do we really want Wikipedia.org on the filter list of every school site, business, and organization? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 18:14, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

    How about http://images.google.com/images?q=goatse.cx Google]? --gcbirzan^talk 19:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Which is exactly why, in the school district where I used to work, images.google.com was unfortunately on the filter list --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 21:01, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

32. I've seen it. Does my brain come with an undo feature? Anyway, it should be a link. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
33. Seen, and do not wish to see again. Don't think that having it adds anything of value to wikipedia. Certainly not worth the cost. --Fangz 00:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
34. FOo has said it all. I have seen it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
35. So far over the line, it will damage Wikipedia. Trying to push cultural barriers can often be POV and in this case is. Incidentally, the image is not fair use either. --Audiovideo 01:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. I agree with everything that FOo has said. Yes, I've seen it. BlankVerse 09:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
37. And delete the image. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
38. mav 03:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Let's hope that a poll is never needed for the tubgirl image.. —Xezbeth 18:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
40. Sn0wflake 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. External link, please, Yuck. JuntungWu 09:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
42. Duk 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
43. External link, at most. I reject the chain of reasoning that says a notorious web site is notable and thefore rates a Wikipedia article and thefore Wikipedia must provide an example of its most notorious content without any further justification (eg the content is valuable information that is being suppressed). --agr 14:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. External link with a prominent warning. I have seen this image by mistake. I was revolted. It will damage Wikipedia immeasurably to have this image in the Wikipedia. People use this image to vandalize sites. Are Wikipedia editors such dupes or lacking in respect for their own project that they will auto-vandalize Wikipedia? --BM 22:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Delete, this is not fair use. I have seen the photo, and I have seen that this "screenshot" is a thinly veiled justification for violating it's copyright. —Stormie 10:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
46. External Link. Have seen it. — Asbestos | Talk 11:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
47. exlink and delete image. Gazpacho 11:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
48. External link. Haven't seen, thankfully. r3m0t 16:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
49. ObsidianOrder
50. bdesham 15:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
51. External with a warning. Have seen. Preisler 00:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
52. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
53. Theo (Talk) 02:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Seen it.
54. External link, with warning, and delete the image (and the silly "TrollStar" Barnstar derived from it – ClockworkSoul 04:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
55. While I do not believe in censorship, I do believe in common sense. To me, putting Goatse on Wikipedia for a legitimate purpose is far too risky, even though Wikipedians tend to be very quick to revert. --Pidgeot 23:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
56. BrokenSegue 02:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC), have seen.
57. Wikipedia shouldn't be a source of shock images, but a place to discuss the shock-site phenomenon. Laura Scudder 00:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other/none of the above

1. Wikipedia shouldn't link to obscene pics that are illegal to view in many jurisdictions (we certainly shouldn't show them without warning!) Any link to material of this nature is unencyclopaedic, jguk 22:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   It is currently legal to host a screenshot of Goatse.cx in the United States, so Wikipedia has nothing to worry about. I can't think of any government that outlaws viewing this type of content and keeps such strict watch on its citizens that they would need to worry about simply viewing Goatse. Guanaco 21:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Whether the image is easily accessible via external links isn't realy important. That could be applied to practically any image on Wikipedia, if someone wanted to. So why this one in particular? - Vague | Rant 04:15, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I really can't figure how this one fits under fair use. Other than that thank goodness for double thinkGeni 08:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a screenshot of a website. Have you actually looked at Image:goatse screenshot.jpg, or did you simply assume it was hello.jpg? --SPUI (talk) 08:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am aware it is a screenshot however since it is still a significant proportion of an artist's work I can't see how screenshots of still images count as fair useGeni 08:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Geni, I can't see how this is fair use. You can call it a screenshot of a website but the fact is that that image contains the goatse hello.jpg with nothing more than a slight reduction in size applied to it. —Stormie 10:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Why was the image deleted? I don't see it in the deletion log, and people can't be expected to vote if they don't know the picture they're voting on. --gcbirzan^talk 12:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A link is provided at the top of this poll (see "The image in question…"). I see it has been deleted again. Well, it is still available as an external link somewhere at the bottom of the Goatse.cx article. -- Curps 17:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's now available again, thanks SPUI! --gcbirzan^talk 17:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and vote, and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages such as Talk:Goatse.cx. Please do not edit this page.