Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and
now. This one image in
question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of
those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me
that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people
refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary
to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to
attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but
the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
1. Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
2. Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something
offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more
offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform
in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who
might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the
moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general
desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same
manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream