Jimmy Wales schrieb:
Andrew Gray wrote:
The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get interestingly creative...
I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page. It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page. All images stay per default visible.
The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image, those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad can just click the link in the ambox and read our article with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
Unfortunately this solution needs some additional javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll need to copy my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload), you should be able to see my compromise at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
To implement this compromise, we should think about a more general approach, something like a Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
br