--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Rich-
The cost of catering to those who are offended by
the
images is a mouse-click from those who are not.
The
cost of catering to those who would be offended by having masked images is the non-participation of
those
who are offended by the images.
...<large snip>...
To cite your own example, if we started censoring .. uh, excuse me, "masking" images of women's faces like that, I would 100% certainly leave the project, as would probably many others. And the argument for doing that is no stronger or weaker than the argument for masking the clitoris photo. In fact, I predict that if we masked *all* somewhat sexually explicit pictures (penises, buttocks, breasts ..) in this way, several people would be annoyed and/or leave the project.
Wow, I sure used a poor example to support my own cause, and then didn't explain myself either. What I was thinking at the time was that we should mask photos of women's faces from a culture that has a taboo about showing women's faces, ie a photo from a culture that would be offensive in that same culture. I was not thinking that the implication was that we would mask *all* photos of women's faces.
Obviously, my logic was muddled (I'll plead the usual excuse of trying to think clearly on too much coffee and too little sleep).
Just in case anyone might have the wrong idea, let me make it plain that I am not in favor of removing *any* images based on their offensiveness to anyone, or of blocking any images from anyone. I am also not suggesting that we mask all images of women's faces.
Personally, I have no interest in viewing photos of an execution by decapitation. Some might say that I should view them for my own good -- they may be right and I may view them despite my aversion. But to force me to view them in order to read about the event is certainly forcing a POV.
One might suggest that there is near universal agreement that those images should be masked (or would you say censored?). But if the goal is to achieve "near universal offensiveness", what better way to achieve it than to display such images? Why have *any* images masked?
Any restriction on content betrays a POV. Having no restriction on content betrays a POV.
The truth is that Wikipedia *does* project a strong point of view, or several of them -Information should be freely available -Wikipedia should be restricted to verifiable information, of some importance (however that's defined) -That topics should be presented evenly, with criticisms, so that the reader can decide for themselves based on the facts -That conversation should be rational and devoid of personal attacks -That disputes should be resolved democratically (if not by a popular vote, then by a vote of representatives)
I strongly agree with all these POV's in Wikipedia. But let us recognize that they are POV's that are not universally held. Wikipedia takes a stand.
At issue here is what stand Wikipedia will take on images that some find offensive. There is no way to avoid POV on this topic.
I assert that Wikipedia should take reasonable steps to remove as many barriers to accessing information as possible, even when the barrier is socially imposed. Let people access the information without forcing them to violate social taboos.
If I understand you correctly, you would want to require a very high percentage (90-95%?) of voters to agree before masking an image. In other words, it would only take 10% to prevent the masking of an image. That certainly gives a large amount of power to a small number of people. 10% can force 90% to view an offensive image if they want to access the information.
I suggest a much lower threshold -- say 30%. In other words, 30% of the voters could force 70% to use an extra mouse click to view the image. The cost to the 70% is low. The benefit is a Wikipedia that is taking steps to be culturally sensitive.
With respect, -Rich Holton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861