EM = Erik Moeller me = me (Rich Holton)
me> How much is lost if we "mask" an image that a me> significant number of people find offensive?
EM> Quite a bit, in my opinion. By doing so, we EM> emphasize this particular EM> bias. For example, if we censor images of body parts EM> (connected to their EM> body *cough*), we emphasize the bias of modern US EM> society against nudity, EM> a bias which is by no means universal.
In this case we may be emphasizing the bias of modern US society against nudity, but in another case we may be emphasizing the bias of another culture -- for example, one in which a woman's face is not to be seen in public.
EM> Of course you can argue that by not censoring EM> ourselves, we become biased EM> *against* that viewpoint. But that is not true if EM> our lack of censorship EM> is consistent. Then we are merely biased in favor of EM> being inclusive EM> which, in my opinion, is a necessary bias for an EM> encyclopedia, just like EM> we are pro-knowledge rather than anti-knowledge and EM> pro-neutrality rather EM> than pro-atheism or pro-theism, etc.
Well, first of all, I would not argue that we are or are not censoring ourselves. I never suggested removing images; I only suggested allowing the user the choice to view the article and not view the images.
Second, I don't follow how masking the images is *less* inclusive than not masking them. Do you mean more inclusive of images, or more inclusive of people? My argument is precisely that masking the images is more inclusive of people, without excluding any images.
The cost of catering to those who are offended by the images is a mouse-click from those who are not. The cost of catering to those who would be offended by having masked images is the non-participation of those who are offended by the images.
I agree with you that an encyclopedia, particularly Wikipedia, needs to be pro-knowledge and pro-NPOV. But another guiding principle of Wikipedia is that it is pro-user/pro-reader. We go out of our way to make it accessible to as many people as possible. Why not apply that to the display of offensive images?
Again, I am NOT suggesting the elimination of the images. Only presenting them in a way that improves the "accessibility" and usability of Wikipedia.
With respect, Rich Holton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861