-----Original Message----- From: Gregory Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com]
Hogwash.
When you systematically remove informative content that your personal system of values deems as offensive or unethical you force the encyclopedia to adopt your bias: By removing content that is considered by some to be 'wrong' because it is considered to be 'wrong' we make the statement that the encyclopedia considers the content is wrong and therefor present a non neutral point of view.
Who's talking about systematic removal of information? It's going to be one click away, in [[Images of poo]] or whatever you want to call it. Don't give me shit about hiding content.
Oops, I mean don't accuse me of hiding shit.
Hmm. I seem to be running a bit of a potty mouth today. Sorry.
Ed Poor
On 6/14/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Who's talking about systematic removal of information? It's going to be one click away, in [[Images of poo]] or whatever you want to call it. Don't give me shit about hiding content. Oops, I mean don't accuse me of hiding shit. Hmm. I seem to be running a bit of a potty mouth today. Sorry.
:) Well certainly it's silly to make the image huge, but out standard should be to match the style of wikipedia... and it's not normal to put basic images of a subject on their own page...
It is useful for some subjects to have a gallery page on the commons, because sometimes people want to see many images... but this doesn't mean we don't include pictures in the article as well.
Now, which pictures go in the gallery vs the article should be decided based on ability to inform, and only if they are equal do we decide on risk of offense. The existance of a gallery page doesn't give us the ability to violate NPOV by deciding based on our point of view over the more objective criteria of informativeness and encyclopedic merit.