Erik Moeller wrote:
How much is lost if we "mask" an image that a significant number of people find offensive?
Quite a bit, in my opinion. By doing so, we emphasize this particular bias. For example, if we censor images of body parts (connected to their body *cough*), we emphasize the bias of modern US society against nudity, a bias which is by no means universal.
Of course you can argue that by not censoring ourselves, we become biased *against* that viewpoint. But that is not true if our lack of censorship is consistent. Then we are merely biased in favor of being inclusive which, in my opinion, is a necessary bias for an encyclopedia, just like we are pro-knowledge rather than anti-knowledge and pro-neutrality rather than pro-atheism or pro-theism, etc.
I don't think that's being neutral, but taking a point of view. You are taking the point of view that some things---decapitated hostages, [[golden showers]], [[coprophilia]], and any number of other subjects---are too offensive to have inline images, but that some---such as nudity---are due to particular biases you disagree with.
I'd say the bias against nudity is probably pretty heavy in the world. The US is actually one of the most liberal countries in the world when it comes to permitting nudity---there are plenty of countries where merely possessing pornography will earn you a trip to jail. Several billion of the world's citizens are pretty solidly opposed to public depictions of nudity.
-Mark