[WikiEN-l] Offensive photos policy

[Peter Jaros]

On May 12, 2004, at 8:34 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Aside from any NPOV issues with the image itself (is it manipulative?
> singled out? fake? etc.), an image is a *fact*. Nobody disputes that
> Lynndie England held a prisoner in Abu Ghraib on a leash. What some 
> people
> claim is that this particular image in this particular article should 
> not
> be shown inline because it is offensive to them. If we do this, then we
> *selectively* endorse this point of view. If we selectively show it, we
> endorse the opposite view. If we show all images where there is no
> consensus that they are offensive, we endorse *no* point of view.
>
> Now you appear to argue that by doing that we make some people unhappy,
> hence we violate NPOV. I'm sure the Mother Teresa article will also 
> make
> some people unhappy, but I'm hardly willing to make them happier by
> removing or hiding some inconvenient facts.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Images can be
more than facts.  They can evoke, as Delirium put it, a "visceral"
response.  That is beyond the academic and the factual.  If a
significant number of people would like to know the *facts* about a
topic, but feel uncomfortable with seeing certain images, they
should have that opportunity.  It's not a right, it's an expression
of WikiLove.

If people simply don't want to know certain *facts*, in text or in
image, I agree that reworking articles to this end is a breakdown of
NPOV.  Allowing users to learn all the facts without an unwanted
visceral reaction is just playing nice and making the Wikipedia more
accessible.

Peter

                            -- ---<>--- --
                  A house without walls cannot fall.
     Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                            -- ---<>--- --