--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay. So, let us set a consistent policy on this. I totally approved
- picture that is universally considered
offensive -> link
- picture that is considered offensive by some,
not by others -> embed
I'm not sure if you meant this literally, figuratively, or sarcastically. If you really meant that a picture must be "universally considered offensive" before if is moved behind a link, I must disagree. You will never get "universal" agreement on anything. So that policy will end up the equivalent of never putting a picture behind a link.
If the consensus view is that a picture should never be "hidden" behind a link, then let's state that plainly. If we want to allow for variation based on the context, then let's eliminate the "universal" wording.
Fortunately, I fixed the clitoris page, otherwise, we had -> clitoris -> link -> universally considered offensive -> torture -> embedded -> considered offensive by some, not by others
Which I do not think is consistent with reality.
It seems to me that one of the important issues is, who is to determine what is or is not consistent with reality? I know that some cultures/subcultures have a much greater sensitivity to public nudity than do others. Which culture is consistent with reality? From which culture's point of view will the decision be made?
NPOV concerns more than just slanted writing. It includes such things as what cultural bias is revealed in the presentation. Obviously, we cannot eliminate culture bias, but we do make efforts to make reasonable accommodations.
For example, we strive to be multi-lingual. There are Wikipedias in every language on which people are willing to work. In theory, at least, there is no preferred language in the Wikipedia world.
We go to quite a bit of effort to ensure that there is not a de-facto bias against non-technical people (Hence, Wiki mark-up). We try to support as many browsers as possible, to the detriment of those with a "standard" browser (the developers time is "wasted" on supporting those other browsers).
In other words, the majority sometimes makes sacrifices to accommodate the minorities. It is a central principle of NPOV and Wikipedia.
How much is lost if we "mask" an image that a significant number of people find offensive?
I understand that some could be offended by the fact that we mask images. The penalty that those people pay is minimal, as the photo is readily available. The penalty is one mouse click per image.
If we approach it the other way, and do not mask the images, the penalty for those who are offended is that certain articles will become *unavailable* to them, unless they view what they find offensive. They have no alternative (short of using a different source for information).
I would say the cost of masking some images is minimal compared with other costs that we accept without question.
Clearly we cannot mask all images. It seems to me that masking none is also not the answer.
The question becomes, what is a "significant number of people"? At what point do we mask the image? How do we decide?
-Rich Holton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861