Over the last few months we've had several instances where certain explicit images have been the bone of contention. The discussion starts on IfD and then rapidly fills IRC, Wiki-EN and other media. As far as I can gather there are only two real schools of thought. One is that it is a viewer's responsibility to block images, the other is that Wikipedia should employ various ways to protect its viewers from what some would could consider offensive/immoral etc.
First the numbers thing. Of all the people worldwide, the vast majority would take offense at the Kate Winslet thing. This includes about a billion of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and large numbers of other people who otherwise feel that it would be inappropriate. To force a liberal image policy on them effectively excludes these people from being informed by Wikipedia.
Then the browser thing. Most people do not turn off images (that is a fact), and those who know how to do it would only do it if they expected inappropriate images. I suspect most casual surfers would not expect Wikipedia to contain explicit images.
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.
en:User:Jfdwolff
____________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned by the StreamShield Protector antivirus system.
Free education for all doctors. The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date. http://www.doctors.net.uk/freelearning ____________________________________________________________
First the numbers thing. Of all the people worldwide, the vast majority would take offense at the Kate Winslet thing. This includes about a billion of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and large numbers of other people who otherwise feel that it would be inappropriate. To force a liberal image policy on them effectively excludes these people from being informed by Wikipedia.
Sorry bud, you are clueless and prejudiced. One of the most important rules of rhethorics is that you should not generalise about groups that may be present in the audience unless you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that you represent them. Are you absolutely sure that you speak for "billions of Christians, hundreds of mullions of Muslims"? Wouldn't it take just ONE Muslim or Christian to step forward and say "I don't take offense at the picture" for your argument to be completely torpedoed?
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
First the numbers thing. Of all the people worldwide, the vast majority would take offense at the Kate Winslet thing. This includes about a billion of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and large numbers of other people who otherwise feel that it would be inappropriate. To force a liberal image policy on them effectively excludes these people from being informed by Wikipedia.
Sorry bud, you are clueless and prejudiced. One of the most important rules of rhethorics is that you should not generalise about groups that may be present in the audience unless you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that you represent them. Are you absolutely sure that you speak for "billions of Christians, hundreds of mullions of Muslims"? Wouldn't it take just ONE Muslim or Christian to step forward and say "I don't take offense at the picture" for your argument to be completely torpedoed?
*duly steps forward and waves* Hi. I'm Arkady and I'm a Catholic. I'm not offended by it at all.
-a
Arkady Rose said:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
To force a liberal image policy on them effectively
excludes these people from being informed by Wikipedia.
Wouldn't it take just ONE Muslim or Christian to step forward and say "I don't take offense at the picture" for your argument to be completely torpedoed?
*duly steps forward and waves* Hi. I'm Arkady and I'm a Catholic. I'm not offended by it at all.
I think it should also be recognised that there's another canard here: the idea that those people who think an image isn't appropriate in a certain article are being "excluded from being informed". Even if it were true that everybody was forced to look at a picture they didn't want to see, the textual content itself is GFDL and, if it's as heinously adorned with filth as some seem to think, someone will pop along sooner or later and provide a bowdlerized mirror service. That's what free content means.