--- jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible, sensitive and broad-minded.
I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
And they continue to fail to address where the line is drawn. The author contends that we should cater to the millions of people worldwide who would be offended by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no suggestion to remove all images of women's faces, which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. Or the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of the naked girl running from napalm. Or the image of a man with a gun to his head. Or the image of Rachel Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
On 4/19/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible, sensitive and broad-minded.
I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
And they continue to fail to address where the line is drawn. The author contends that we should cater to the millions of people worldwide who would be offended by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no suggestion to remove all images of women's faces, which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. Or the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of the naked girl running from napalm. Or the image of a man with a gun to his head. Or the image of Rachel Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.
RickK
The "line" is drawn by the community, on a case by case basis, with discussion and votes. Do you object to this process?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:08:12PM -0700, Puddl Duk wrote:
On 4/19/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible, sensitive and broad-minded.
I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
And they continue to fail to address where the line is drawn. The author contends that we should cater to the millions of people worldwide who would be offended by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no suggestion to remove all images of women's faces, which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. Or the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of the naked girl running from napalm. Or the image of a man with a gun to his head. Or the image of Rachel Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.
RickK
The "line" is drawn by the community, on a case by case basis, with discussion and votes. Do you object to this process?
In an effort to head off RickK's perhaps more abrasive style . . . Perhaps his comments here are meant to express his position as a part of that community, and your pointed query is not strictly conducive to that process. While I could be wrong (and even if I'm not, I'm sure you'll tell me that I am), it reads to me as though you are implying that his argument is a de facto objection to that process.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a mechanism that permits users to prevent the display of some images?
Note that I am asking if the very idea is a problem so that we know whether it is the concept or the details of the mechanism that exercises you.
Theo
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:21:09 +0100, Rick wrote:
�--- jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
�Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key �to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is �part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have �argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as �an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible, �sensitive and broad-minded.
�I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida �are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
�And they continue to fail to address where the line is �drawn. �The author contends that we should cater to �the millions of people worldwide who would be offended �by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no �suggestion to remove all images of women's faces, �which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. �Or �the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of �the naked girl running from napalm. �Or the image of a �man with a gun to his head. �Or the image of Rachel �Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.
Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a mechanism that permits users to prevent the display of some images?
I can't answer for RickK, but since I also would like to view Wikipedia articles with illustrations, let me offer my view. The problem with any mechanism that enables users to filter images is that that mechanism threatens to become default. Noone has a problem with someone choosing not to see certain images, but (almost) everyone has a problem with someone telling US which images we should see. Noone has explicitly or implicitly stated that image filtering should be a default. But if it is not default, then the feature is worthless. At most 1% of all Wikipedia visitors has registered an account, and at most 10% (guesses) of those that has, has changed their preferences. It is only those few that would benefit from this feature if it was optional. Sure, it would help a few like the guy who said he risked losing his job because he surfed on Wikipedia, but the vast majority would gain no benefit at all.