Then surely there must be hundred of thousands of objections to the inaccurate (and overwrought) characterization of the "show" as "censorship". It simply is no such thing.
And your use of the phrase "collective morality" is telling, in exactly the wrong way. We're supposed to be neutral; we aren't supposed to *have* a morality in that sense. Right now, anyone can see that we aren't neutral about depictions of Muhammad.
I've said about what was worth saying in this. Of course, the "show" version is a concession. But what it comes down to at the moment is that making a moral statement about those illustrations is worth fighting over the issue forever. My personal view is that the article shouldn't be caught between the aniconic fundamentalists and the image inclusion fundamentalists.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a depictions" page have been discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best "suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as Wikipedians.