From: David Friedland david@nohat.net

How would you feel if the linked images had a disclaimer saying something to this effect:

The following images have been placed on a separate page because they MAY be consiered disturbing and/or offensive. It is Wikipedia policy not to take a position on whether the following images are in fact disturbing or offensive or not (See [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View]]). However, to avoid disturbing or offending those users to whom the images are disturbing or offensive, they have been placed on a separate page.

It would be nice to find a much shorter way of expressing this, but I think this is a very accurate and nicely put expression of what I, personally, feel needs to be expressed. And I think it's a good policy, while recognizing that no disclaimer can change the fact that placing the link does amount to catering to somebody's point of view.

I've been brooding about this issue of "making it a link caters to a point of view." I've asked myself how I would feel if I went to an article about someone I admire--say, Margaret Sanger--and found that the text had been completely replaced with a link and a disclaimer, saying "It is Wikipedia policy not to take an position on whether the life and opinions of Margaret Sanger are, in fact, offensive. However, to avoid disturbing or offending those users to whom this material is offensive, we have placed it on a separate page." My conclusion is that I _would_ find this irritating but I would find it tolerable. (Just barely).

Linking to photographs which ought to be seen _does_ affect the _balance_ of point of view on the page, but does not amount to _censorship_ or _suppression_ of any point of view.