On 5/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:41:58 +0200, you wrote:
>Hmm, to play devil's advocate, how would you feel if someone deleted a
>hard-core pornographic image, and didn't replace it with a link? I
>doubt you would call it vandalism. I believe that most (some?) Muslims
>find these cartoons extremely offensive, so it's not surprising that
>they would remove them without replacing them with a link.
So I personally would not include the cartoons in the
article, because
they are considered offensive by many of the potential readers and
that will colour their view of the neutrality of the article, but
undoubtedly would link to them since the whole issue makes little (or
at least much less) sense if you've not seen them.
Well, the comparison I was making was linking to an image of explicit
hardcore porn (not just a film website, for example). There are
probably people who argue that such links are a good thing. However,
most people don't. However, if you find the cartoons similarly
offensive, then linking to them would be quite comparable.
Steve