Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline : 3 Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline : 4 (with one person who probably did not understand the question well) That makes : 7/44 (perhaps 6/44) ------- Image is offensive to me, should be linked to or removed : 14 Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to or removed : 16 Haven't looked at image, should be linked to or removed : 7 That makes : 37/44 (perhaps 38/44), hence 84 % ------- It is interesting to note that 7 people voluntarily did NOT want to look at it. We can suppose that these people would *really* prefer to have the choice to click on the picture, than being forced to see it. I would like to note as well, that afaik, currently, when an image is listed on votes for deletion, I think the % required for removal is 80% (or something like this ?) If some people find a picture offensive, and want it not to be displayed online, they will have two possibilities * campaigning for plain deletion (80%) * campaigning for inline linking (???) Obviously, ??? can not be a % over 80%. If a number of 95% is required to label a picture "offensive", that means *first that people will rather try to have it plain deleted (not exactly the best way to achieve a consensus, and truely potential censorship) *second that the decision will be taken in truth by 6% of people (the tyranny of the minority) This seems a very strange way to manage decisions than to have 6% of people impose their opinion, and second to favor extrem solutions over a more consensual one. I would think that as soon as there is a question over a picture, we roughly decide that more than 80% for removal lead the picture to be removed. If less than 80% but more than 50% have a problem with the picture being displayed online, then the image is * kept in the db * not directly visible in the article * visible through a link, either in a gallery or the image page itself * that a warning message is displayed in the article (general mediawiki message for example) * that the link to the image is made "proeminent", so as not to be missed by those interested (bold for example) -------- Future : Additionnaly, I think we could go forward setting a couple of categories of potentially offensive pictures, such as * sex * violence * nudity * ... When the category system is on, a picture labelled offensive (so, between 50% and 80% of opinion) could belong to one of these categories. People might choose to display one or several of these categories or not in their prefs. If the filter is OFF for a category : the image is displayed online If the filter is ON for a category : the image is available through a link __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861