Erik writes:
However, I think we should be very careful with such taboos, and only apply them when there is almost universal agreement to do so. In other words, when there's *near* unanimous consensus not to have images, then we can do without them.
So far, so good. I agree.
This is not the case for genitalia -- I think pictures of genitalia are only offensive to a relatively small segment of the population
I disagree. A very large number of Americans will refuse to use Wikipedia if it contains color photographs of penises, vaginas, anal sphincters, etc. If we do not have at least some level of protection, then we will become one of America's most-blocked site on home and school Internet filters.
(On the other hand, such blocking might occur because we have NPOV discussions of God and religion, which is a threat to many Americans as well...)
Perhaps main articles should have no such images, but can contain a link to a related article with such photos. That way even if pages are blocked due to certain images, the main articles would still be available to be read in most homes and schools.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus