On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 26 August 2011 02:15, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
make it plainer, that people who find ? Wikipedia articles appropriate for advocating their religious beliefs may use the content for that purpose, to that the WMF should find some universally acceptable sets of spiritual beliefs, and use its content to advocate them. Taking one of the proposed possibilities (probably the one that instigated this), providing for censoring images on the grounds of sexual content is doing exactly that for views on ?sexual behavior. We're officially saying that X is content you may find objectionable, but Y isn't. That's making an editorial statement about what is shown on X and Y.
I've finally twigged what's worrying me about this discussion.
We're *already* making these editorial statements, deciding what is and isn't appropriate or offensive for the readers on their behalf, and doing it within articles on a daily basis.
What's worrying me about your discussion is that you're differentiating between users who are readers and users who are editors. You've given up on wikipedia being a wiki? ;-)
As such, I don't think considering this as the first step towards censorship, or as a departure from initial neutrality, is very meaningful; it's presuming that the alternative is reverting to a neutral and balanced status quo, but that never really existed.
I'm not saying there are no (minor) issues with neutrality as it stands. We work hard on that every day. I don't believe that just because we're not 100% perfect means that we can just give up and throw out NPOV entirely!
The status quo is that every reader, in every context, gets given the one particular image selection that a group of Wikipedians have decided is appropriate for them to have, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis...
The status quo is that anyone can edit an article or enter a discussion about the article. I don't understand why you would say it is take-it-or-leave-it. I can still, today, as an anon, remove or add images as I see fit. This is permitted and even encouraged, provided that what I am doing is sane (And thus most likely meets consensus).
sincerely, Kim Bruning