Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet another limitation of their expression, and that instruction creep of this kind is both undesirable (because it limits appropriate use of certain words, concepts and images) and unnecessary (because only the group in question knows at any given time what it does and does not find acceptable to it).
Well, I do not find your arguments convincing. I am in agreement with several others who have indicated that if we as a community cannot come to some agreement about not openly displaying patently offensive images, then I may need to reconsider how much I want to be associated with such a community. I mean, I love the openness and freedom of Wikipedia, but there are limits to most everything within the scale of human experience. I think we need to aim for the semi-mythical Golden Mean in which the vast majority of the content is acceptable to the vast majority of people, even if it means excluding or "bowlderizing" a tiny fraction of content at the extreme edges.
Bkonrad