[WikiEN-l] Re: troubled.

[Delirium]

Erik Moeller wrote:

>>How much is lost if we "mask" an image that a
>>significant number of people find offensive?
>>    
>>
>
>Quite a bit, in my opinion. By doing so, we emphasize this particular  
>bias. For example, if we censor images of body parts (connected to their  
>body *cough*), we emphasize the bias of modern US society against nudity,  
>a bias which is by no means universal.
>
>Of course you can argue that by not censoring ourselves, we become biased  
>*against* that viewpoint. But that is not true if our lack of censorship  
>is consistent. Then we are merely biased in favor of being inclusive  
>which, in my opinion, is a necessary bias for an encyclopedia, just like  
>we are pro-knowledge rather than anti-knowledge and pro-neutrality rather  
>than pro-atheism or pro-theism, etc.
>  
>
I don't think that's being neutral, but taking a point of view.  You are 
taking the point of view that some things---decapitated hostages, 
[[golden showers]], [[coprophilia]], and any number of other 
subjects---are too offensive to have inline images, but that some---such 
as nudity---are due to particular biases you disagree with.

I'd say the bias against nudity is probably pretty heavy in the world.  
The US is actually one of the most liberal countries in the world when 
it comes to permitting nudity---there are plenty of countries where 
merely possessing pornography will earn you a trip to jail.  Several 
billion of the world's citizens are pretty solidly opposed to public 
depictions of nudity.

-Mark