Lord Voldemort wrote:
Okay, I'll do my best at explaining how I see the situation. The WP
community has the goal of creating an encyclopedia. As an
encyclopedia, it is our job to accurately describe and explain certain
issues. In order to determine the best way to explain or describe an
issue, we use consensus (i.e. supermajority... not democracy). In
this particular instance, the community decided that the best way to
explain or describe the issue is to show the actual images being
discussed. Images are an essential part of WP, as they say, a picture
says a thousand words (probably more). Therefore for a particular
topic, images can be very useful, no? So since the community has
decided that the images improve our ability to explain or describe the
topic, the removal of the images reduces our ability to explain or
describe the topic, thus being detrimental to the encyclopedia.
There's a flaw in your last sentence: Even if the "community"
(I'd say the majority) decides that the images improve our ability
to explain or describe the topic, the removal of the images does
not necessarily reduce our ability to explain or describe the topic.
Stating so would mean, that the majority is always right. Sometimes
(especially if an issue concerns a minority) the majority can be
wrong. Wikipedia would be worse than a democracy, if the views
of a majority is the only criteria for content decisions, as it
would result in an Ochlocracy. To protect minorities every system
has fundamental rules, which cannot be overruled by any majority
(at least the majority would have to change those rules first).
Wikipedia has those too:
WP:NPA, WP:Etiquette, WP:BP, WP:NOT, WP:Profanity, ...
We understand people may be offended. We would be
heartless to not
"get it" on this point. But should we remove every image anyone finds
offensive? This is a serious question, not just a hypothetical.
<Modified Godwin's alert> If an image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is
offensive to Jews, should we remove it?
It is not necessary to ask the all or none question: Every controversial
image can be considered on a case by case basis, as it is already:
I.e. the [[human feces]] article doesn't have an image of human feces,
the [[Goatse.cx]] image has been removed, the image of [[Bahá'u'lláh]]
has been moved below the fold (though I'd rather remove that),...
And there are more options than just showing an image or removing it.
An image can be lowered, replaced with a link to it or a warning
template can be added. Reg. the image of Ahmadinejad: I don't think,
that it is the look of Ahmadinejad, which is so offensive to Jews.
Including the image does not "disinvite"
editors who may feel offended
to voice their opinion on the matter (You seem to be doing a great
job). There is always the talk page (which I thank you for using),
mailing list (Again, thanks), etc.
In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors
who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because
no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a
binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in