On 05/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/02/2008, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to mention the lack of an objective way to
determine whether an
> image (or anything else) is "potentially-offending" enough that an
> otherwise reasonable person somewhere might want to opt out of it.
> It's not our place to make that decision for this or any other
> content.
That's pretty much my position. I have no real
problem with making it
easy for people to not see things that would offend them, but I do
have a problem with doing it in some cases and not others (it's
discrimination), and I don't think it's practical to do it in all
cases. Therefore, we are left with no choice other than not to do it
at all.
I believe we went through this with, on [[autofellatio]], the photo of
a guy sucking his own penis. There was a massive debate about
possibly-offensive content, and a detailed straw-poll page which
should probably be up somewhere. (Does anyone recall the link?) I
think consensus that time around came to "Wikipedia is not censored,
we judge content editorially on encyclopedic value and quality and
NPOV." Which I suppose means that if you want to have content someone
strongly objects to, it behooves you to do the best possible job on
the article. Which I can't see as a bad thing.
- d.