Sorry, I get mine in digest form -- I'm sure I'm breaking a thread. Tony's reply to me included the following: If this is true, Tony (and perhaps it is), I think it's sad. Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were abandoning that dream. If we are, maybe I need to take some time and think about what I'm really doing at Wikipedia: granted, the ideal of zero censorship is its own noble enterprise, but is it the noble enterprise I signed on for? A difficult question. I'm not advocating paranoia (deleting all sex-related articles and pretending humans are born under cabbages). I'm suggesting that there is a difference between an article seriously detailing what a sexual practice is and an article with a picture of a man sucking his penis. The first one I can see in a school -- perhaps a liberal-minded school, but a school nonetheless. I can't really envision a school where the picture is acceptable. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough. David Gerard commented in reply to me: David, I'm not completely clear what you're asking me. If I understand you correctly, I'd argue that any explicit depiction of violent killing or dismemberment would also qualify as a linked photo topic. Again, it's not because Wikipedia should describe in detail the horror of what humanity does to humanity. It's that seeing it visually depicted can be overwhelming. We should absolutely talk about Nick Berg. We should absolutely give people the opportunity to watch a video of what happened to Nick Berg. I don't think it therefore follows that we need to stream that video into the article directly. The goal is to educate and inform. If people honestly can't see a difference....well, I'm baffled, and I guess I'll have to think about how to explain the distinction. And the suggested option would be a good one, David, assuming that the default was to link. If the default is "inline", that means that most of the users we'll drive off will be driven off, since they'll see whatever image shocks them before they discover the toggle switch in "my preferences". Christiaan said in reply to me: I'm sure they will, Christiaan. I'm not suggesting that what I do is all that remarkable. But I am sure we all do recommend the site to others (I'm personally responsible for about a dozen people knowing and relying on Wikipedia for information, though sadly all refuse to edit -- I'm sure most of you have invited many more than I have), and so I think it's legitimate to ask us all to consider whether we will still do this. Recently, in my area, the publically owned television station (a type of tv called "Public Access" in my area) banned a program from its channel that was broadcasting pornographic images (the program was called "Mike Hunt TV"....say it a few times fast if you don't get it). "Mike" argued that the airwaves were public, and he had as much right as the next person to say and show what he liked on his program. Personally, I ended up disagreeing with him: no one I know watches the informative programming on Public Access, mostly because it has become known as a home for pornographic images and lunatic POV rants. I'd like it if Wikipedia didn't become Public Access -- if people didn't worry about clicking a Wikipedia link at work or in front of their kids (just as people in my area now don't often click to Public Access to see what's on....because they fear they know exactly what will be on). Are we making a usable encyclopedia, or an experiment in free speech and democracy? We seem to keep saying we're an encyclopedia project. Well, if we are, I think we need to ask ourselves how to reach the broadest possible audience with the most possible information. If that's not the goal of an encyclopedia, I don't know what is. And it seems to me that providing linked images provides almost the same breadth of information, while improving the size of our audience by a measurably larger amount. Thanks for taking me seriously -- always makes me feel better, even when everyone disagrees with me. :-) James R. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250