This has nothing to do with one's political or even moral philosophy. I don't think the image has any educational value, and I also believe it was chosen just for its shock value.
The entire issue has been arranged as a false dilemma. "Which do we have, no illustrations or one which is intentionally disgusting?" The more sober answer, keeping in mind the goal of the encyclopedia and cooling our jets about turning everything into a battle against "prudes", is that we should look for more images if those are only options.
I'm happy to try and put together a diagram illustrating the different processes of human digestion that food matter goes through when being turned into feces. I think it would be infinitely better. Heck, I'd even try to make it up to Featured Image quality. Then maybe there wouldn't be any real question about whether linking to (rather than inlining) a picture of something that every human on the planet has probably seen on a fairly "regular" basis, yet most find repellant when presented to them in another context, is hampering any educational goals.
The goals of the encyclopedia should be first on our agenda. They are enough of a dramatic statement in and of themself without having to declare ourselves so far above all models of prudery. Edit wars over what I think most people would agree count as a "shocking" image (whether or not you think it should be displayed anyway or not) are not a good use of our time.
If someone knows a good reference off-hand (is there a physiologist in the house?) for the diagram in question, please feel free to send me an e-mail or leave it on my talk page. Thanks.
FF
On 6/15/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
not to educate. We wouldn't tolerate intentionally offensive prose, and we should not tolerate intentionally offensive images.
Only in the last 20th century there has happened hundreds of massacres that a textual description of would make anyone sick to their stomach. Should we not tolerate someone writing or reciting this?
Loose the word "intentionally" because noone can accurately guess someon else intent. Loose the word "offensive" because not everyone takes offense. What you are left with is a picture of shit in an article about shit.
You have heard it lots that Wikipedia is not a "vehicle of free speech". But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the morale conservatists to present their opinion as the truth.
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l