--- blankfaze blankfaze@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote: Sir, this was by far the dumbest opinion I've heard in a while.
That is unreasonably rude.
Reminded me why I have such little faith in humanity.
That would explain the rudeness.
For the millionth time: WE ARE AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA WE PRESENT INFORMATION (an image of autofellatio is, no matter what any idiot argues, information) WE DO NOT CENSOR INFORMATION
For the first and last time: We are a general encyclopedia with a general readership. If the informative value of any piece of info or image is outweighed by its shock or arousal qualities, then a very valid editorial decision is to remove that peice of info or image.
And since our audience is a general one, we have to consider the fact that many people may want to read about this topic (or Goatse.cz for that matter) without having to see an image of it.
For the great majority of things this distinction is meaningless (and we need not pander to a puritanical minority who may have a taboo against showing women's feet or whatever), but for issues where the outside world makes a clear distinction, such as sexual acts, we can make some reasonable guidelines.
Less controversial things, such as clinical photos of naked people's bits and pieces or famous works of art that depict nakedness, can and should be displayed inline in an article *where* appropriate and tasteful. The reason; their informative aspects outweigh any shock or arousal value.
These are are fairly subjective things that reasonable people can disagree on. But some common sense and a good long look at our audience and their needs (not what we think should be forced on them for their own good) will help guide us.
I also imagine that different Wikipedia language versions will come up with whatever policies best fit them.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250