Delirium-
Maybe, maybe not. My argument is that majorities are irrelevant in this context. There should not be a tyranny of the moral majority.
But what *should* there be a tyrrany of? The majority of people who happen to edit Wikipedia, who are generally well-off and concentrated in North America and Europe?
There shouldn't be any tyranny at all. Instead we should treat all material in the same way: link or remove if it is almost universally offensive, show if it isn't. Everything else is POV.
See, if you "masked" nudity, for example, you would be trampling on my POV that nudity is perfectly normal and should be shown. You will respond: Yes, but if you show nudity, you trample on the *majority* POV that it should not be shown. That assertion is incorrect. By treating all images equally, on the basis of community consensus, we do not endorse any single point of view. Selectivity is the issue here.
It's a lot like the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. You can either tolerate all religions equally, or none at all. Tolerating none, in our case, would mean "masking" every image that could be potentially considered offensive by someone somewhere - in effect we would have to mask all of them.
Letting the *majority* view win on this matter would be the first step toward abandoning NPOV. And when this issue was brought up in the past, people started arguing: Well, maybe we *should* abandon NPOV on this, just to avoid losing readers. If you accept that argument, you might as well take all the criticisms out of the [[Mother Teresa]] article because they might drive readers away, or "mask them" by moving them to a separate page, as was initially proposed.
Regards,
Erik