You mean the content is offensive? I think sexually
explicit material falls into a fundimentally different
category. Plus, the [[Christianity]] page doesn't say,
"Jesus Christ is our savior and he will eventualy come
back to smite all of the people who aren't good
christians" (sorry, I don't know much about
christianity, I'm jewish). All it says is different
opinions of different sects of christianity
(hopefully) and doesn't present any as fact. If
christianity is offensive, then so are half the
articles in wikipedia. Just think of World Book, the
current school encyclopedia almost everywhere. They
report on Christianity, but they don't contain
sexually explicit images. If we start to allow this,
then who knows how far it will snowball?
-LittleDan
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
This should be part of a general category scheme,
not a specific solution
for images which are perceived as possibly offensive
to a limited segment
of the population. What if someone finds articles
about Christianity
offensive? Can they block them, too? Singling out
the issue of sexually
explicit material is not neutral.
Regards,
Erik
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com