[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 21.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Kanzlei:
> Am 21.09.2011 um 17:36 schrieb Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>:
>
>> It's your basic philosophy that sucks. It's _not_ the choice of the
>> reader to hide image he don't like. It's the choice of the reader to
>> hide image that others don't like! Now get a cup of tea and think about it.
> It's the bad double-think that sucks. In most cases pictures give no neccessary information in an article or they represent no NPOV information at all. They just illustrate. No piece of information would be missing if the pictures were linked instead of shown. Often it is sheer random which picture is choosen for an article.
For the same reason you could write articles consisting only out of 
links, since writing the article would "represent no NPOV information at 
all". Do you really believe that nonsense you just wrote down?
> But You are right. The basic conflict is philosophical. The question behind is: Shall we continue as tough guys with porn pictures, no limits and no rules as everything started or shall we include more sensitive people, women and nations?
We already include them. The problem aren't some articles. The problem 
is the needed knowledge to participate in an encyclopedia that forces 
you to understand a complete syntax before you even know what your 
doing. That makes us geeky, not our content. Additionally this claim:

    "tough guys with porn pictures, no limits and no rules".

Sorry, i won't comment on this. It's just so out of place and complete 
nonsense-strong-wording.
> Shall our knowledge come rude in one step to everybody or shall we try to reach more people by making steps of least astonishment towards the same truth, but in a pace everybody can live with?
We have no problem with reaching people. We have a problem to let them 
participate. The images aren't the issue. The main issue is the editor 
and overall project climate. Aggressive people, that using one false 
claim after the other or would need to append {{citation needed}} after 
every word, are the ones that drive authors away. Just let the people do 
as they please, and don't say them what they shouldn't look at. That is 
their own decision. The WMF should provide them tools to edit and to 
discuss, but not to blend out the actual content.
> For me this discussion is hypocrite. Don't hide Yoursef behind the "choice of the reader". The writers of an article choose alone. They choose words, order and content. The pictures are in most cases the least important of these. So every article hides a lot of information the writers choose not to show. That's normal. And they normally flippantly forget to write a style the more sensitive can live with, that's all.
How writes articles in "a style the more sensitives can life with" 
should just leave the project. This would be bending of facts and a 
strict violation against NPOV.