Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Quick poll on project recommendations

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick poll on project recommendations

Should this WikiProject recommend the following editorial policies for Wikipedia. If recommended here, it may be appropriate to try to reach Wikipedia consensus on incorporating these guidelines in Wikipedia's general style guidelines:

If an article is about an overt sex act, no image should be used.

Agree

Disagree

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:54, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
Carnildo 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If an article is about a sexual position, for instance, then a picture serves far better than a textual description. I suppose a drawing would be better than a photograph. R adiant _>|< 08:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Lomedae 18:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC) I am fully in agreement with Radiant's statement above.
Hipocrite 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC) I am not in agreement with Radiant's statement above. Drawings are not nearly as useful as photographs.[reply]

Depends

Noitall 06:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC) - simply putting up porn, even for an article on sex, is not encyclopedic and only appeals to the purient interests, but if an appropriate picture is found that illuminates the subject, then it could be used. Some pictures may use shadows or drawings to be encyclopedic.

If an article is about nudity, an image should be used only if necessary details cannot be provided in written form.

Agree

Disagree

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:55, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
Carnildo 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several articles about art are about the depiction of nude models. Such imagery can also be found in museums, so it's certainly appropriate for an encyclopedia. R adiant _>|< 08:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hipocrite 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends

Noitall 06:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC) - simply putting up porn, even for an article on nudity, is not encyclopedic and only appeals to the purient interests, but if an appropriate picture is found that illuminates the subject, then it could be used. Some pictures may use shadows or drawings to be encyclopedic.

If an article is about nudity, and an image is required, an "attractive" subject should be chosen over an "unattractive" one?

Agree

Carnildo 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noitall 06:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC) - the standard is generally to put up the more attractive picture, all things being equal. Purposely putting up and unattractive picture goes against all standards and doing so is inserting some POV.
Keeping it tasteful sounds like a good suggestion. But that's common sense - the article on New York doesn't have a picture of the slums or the smog either. R adiant _>|< 08:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:57, 2005 August 25 (UTC) - IMO, WP should not promote beauty stereotypes, unless that is directly topical to an article. An image itself (how well is it composed, etc) should still be judged partially on aesthetic criteria. MONGO gave a rhetorical example of "Miss January" vs. "An overweight woman"—in that case, we should not as a principle prefer the former over the latter (again, unless topical).
Photographs should be appropriate to their subjects. Hipocrite 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is about a sexual subject, a drawing should normatively be used in preference to a photograph, if a drawing is available?

Agree

Disagree

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
No. Hipocrite 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends

Noitall 06:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC) - simply putting up porn, even for an article on sex, is not encyclopedic and only appeals to the purient interests, but if an appropriate picture is found that illuminates the subject, then it could be used. Some pictures may use shadows or drawings to be encyclopedic.
Depends widely on the situation, but I can see where people would find a drawing more appropriate than a photograph. R adiant _>|< 08:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)