Tony Sidaway wrote:
John Lee said:
40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.
We take votes to try to gauge consensus of *editors*. We should take into account the sensibilities of readers, but it would be wrong to base decisions on the presumed opinions of people who have not expressed any.
Of course. I'm just arguing that the decision made seems to be more reflective of people's *personal* opinions instead of their opinion as to what most readers would prefer. I could be wrong, but I'm just saying, you know?
I do not want to have to block ordinary images from Wikipedia just not to have shock images thrown in my face.
Nor do I. There should not be shock images on Wikipedia. All images should be there solely because they appropriately illustrate an article.
Shall I illustrate our article on shock sites with Goatse and Tubgirl then?
our readership is generally American.
So are our editors, but a minute ago you were using their liberal cultural bias as a reason to ignore the 40% minority who favored inlining a potentially objectionable image. Now you seem to want to use the conservative cultural bias of some Americans who complained about the half-time entertainment in a televised football game as an argument for linking it.
...I was? Perhaps we've misunderstood each other.
If we were to link instead of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain, and if they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the other side were we to carry the image inline.
I agree completely. But I still don't think we should be making such content decisions on the basis of American public's problems with nipples. Presumably those who voted in the way the did were fully aware of the Janet Jackson incident but felt that comparisons between an article on Autofellatio and an annual televised football final traditionally watched by families as a group were inappropriate.
Of course we shouldn't. But we should be making them while keeping in mind a good portion of our audience is offended by such depictions, even if they would never view the article in question. Merely hearing that we inline such images would turn them off to the rest of Wikipedia.
I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run across the option to block images on an individual basis.
I found it in about thirty second on Internet options. Now pages download images as placeholders and each image can be displayed or hidden at will.>>
That's not blocking them on an individual basis. That's _unblocking_ them on an individual basis. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nigh on completely useless.
*I* don't see anybody laughing, John. Also I doubt that you would find the average person to be more shocked by a man sucking his own penis than an eroticised little girl holding a teddy with a huge dildo.
There's a big difference: The former is a full-blown photograph with vivid colours. The latter is an illustration. Technically, both are equally disgusting, but in the real world where people's emotions don't make sense, one is more offensive than the other.
I think we differ on which one is more offensive. I'd be very surprised if more people agreed with you than with me.
Yeah, let's just agree to disagree on this.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])