On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Screamer schreef:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
Question: would you do this
a) for the two unveiled images of Muhammed in [[Muhammed]] b) for all images of Muhammed, including those in the Danish cartoons article c) for all images that offend a large number of people
Just curious
Eugene
/Each situation requires a thoughtful consideration./ If an *entire* culture is offended because of deep seated cultural ideals, then perhaps we should hat hab that image. Especially when such offense is registered in the sheer numbers that is was.
So,
- Does the image offend an entire culture
- Are there substantial or valid complaints to the editors
- Is there a way to compromise without censoring
Addressing these three points would help us in that decision making process, and I believe it helps us in the one article. If further issues of the same magnitude and of the same nature were to arise, I don't think it would be unreasonable to apply the same compromise. There is no slippery slope here, and there is no camel nose in the tent here either.
./screamer
Well put, it is a compromise for extreme real-world situations, not for every image that one or a few editors find offensive. Definitely not a slippery slope.
Peter