Talk:Indonesian government bans pornographic sites

Can anyone help me to repair this article? This is my first time to write a new article in English. Kenrick talk 16:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah sure I'll give you a hand. But you can't give sources that aren't in English. Because for English wikinews they will have to verified by people who cannot necessarily read that language. You need to find some english ones. Just do a google news search for the story. You'll get loads. Type it up and I'll edit it for language corrections. Just make sure your meaning is clear. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some source that is in English. Hopefully there is some Indonesian newspaper that is in English. You can verify the news now. Kenrick talk 03:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done major copyediting on the article and I've put it up for review. I think the article is now up to grade. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyediting. Kenrick talk 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustration
Is this article intended to be banned, too? --AVRS (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the ministry know it, then this article will be banned... hahaha Kenrick talk 14:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the right illustration is like the one that is displayed on Indonesian BBC. Kenrick talk 14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't. This is nothing to do with signs or advertising. In the same way as we don't make things explicit for the hell of it, equally, we should not remove explicit images for the hell of it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By the argument Dendodge is presenting, this car image should go, because that car wasn't involved. Same here. And this croc, because it wasn't the croc that bit the man. This jet didn't crash. Neither did this Concorde. Etc. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews is not censored, however good taste should dictate that we do not include unrelated explicit images even if a vague connection can be argued. File photos should be used when they contribute a meaningful illustration of the topic. In this case all that is being added is an image of something everybody seen before and is needlessly offensive. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * After a bit of IRC consultation with AlexandrDmitri, he's off to Wikipedia's Indonesia project to try and get someone to screenshot what people see when they try to access porn now: I expect everyone can agree on that. Of course, I'm not sure if it's been implemented yet.... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a message and am in #wikipedia-id, but neither seem particularly active. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot make judgements of values such as taste and decency within articles. I take it you feel none of the images used above should have been used, then? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that when we have the option of adding something that adds minimal news value to a story, we should aim for inoffensiveness. If the potentially offensive material added real news value then "Wikinews is not censored" should make the decision simple. This is not the case though, this is not even a good use of a file photo. File photos should be used when they provide a useful comparison for the reader. If the photo is of a similar item as the subject of the article that would be a good use of a file photo. Of the ones you listed this one and the two plane articles show photos of similar items as subject of the article. This one and maybe the croc article are not great uses of file photos. The insurance fraud article uses a photo of the car when the subject is actually the policeman or the actions of the court (A good file photo would be the court house). A random image that illustrates the multitude of images that are effected under the law is inappropriate. It would be like including a file photo of you in an article about changes in a law in Scotland under the principle that you as a citizen (iirc) of Scotland are effected. --Cspurrier (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm prepared to acknowledge you've made a very good argument in support of it. I take the view that images are our friend, to be used where possible provided we have something realted. Isn't it sad how we've never properly discussed when to use a file photo (or even a WN:File photos), but one that people find unpleasant appears and all hell breaks loose? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File photos are fine, but explicit pornography is too much. How about the Indonesian flag or the logo of the ministry involved? That is surely much less likely to offend anybody. Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

From a purely personal point of view, I did not like the pornographic image of the woman used because it did indeed offend me; however, that is entirely beside the point. The article is about blocking of such images and as such the image illustrated the article. I am not arguing the case for gratuitous use of pornography on Wikinews, but I'm afraid that I agree with BRS that "I don't like the image" smacks heavily of censorship. Now what would have been much more useful, rather than debating the use of the image, plus the various reverts that went on, would have been to help those of us who tried to find an alternative image which illustrated the article, as is now the case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other images that have much less chance of offending people: An example 404 (or 505 or whatever Indonesians get), a photo of the minister of communications or whoever is in charge of the ministry that did this, the seal of that department, even the flag of Indonesia or a photo of its president (or prime minister or whatever they call it). I am not opposed to the use of explicit images when they add something to the article, but we all know what porn looks like and plenty of people could be offended by this image, which has no good rationale for inclusion, especially with so many alternatives available. Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the items you suggested add anything more than the porn except the block image - which AD and I spent some time getting hold of whilst others merely whinged. As I said below, if you want to make 'offensiveness' viable under policy - go propose such a policy. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now the illustration problem is finished. (and this article won't be blocked too) Kenrick talk 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New policy
It strikes me that since people clearly haven't got the balls to look at (gasp!) something, as described above, we've all seen[paraphrased], then it looks to me like someone should be proposing a new policy exception, since inclusion is clearly within current policy. Good luck trying to word that one properly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But, but,... ! The Internet is for pr0n! [Disclosure: I've not looked at the apparent edit/revert war.] Remember, Wikinews is not censored. I strongly suspect the initial image should have been left, then replaced once the Telecom Indonesia one was obtained. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected

Typo in title, should be moved to "...government...". --YMS (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)