Chad Perrin wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have. But really the users should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers, not the producers of content. http is not a push medium.
And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that adds no value to the article whatsoever.
You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an article. If you find any, remove it.
*points at [[Autofellatio]]*
Now we've returned to the very subjective realm of trying to define "disgusting crap". I don't know whether the image in question added value to the article. I am largely neutral on the subject. I am, however, extremely concerned with matters such as how we deal with the problem of potentially "disgusting crap" images because whatever mechanisms are put in place will also run the risk of getting false positives.
Some people clearly believe your pointing constitutes a false positive. Others do not. A reasonable mechanism (whether technical or a matter of policy) for sorting the issue out would be desirable, here.
I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we both know it's crap. We're here to provide an educational resource. Inlined explicit photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to educate that a line drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to Wikipedia as an educational resource. Crap like the autofellatio image is even worse.