Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
Erik Moeller wrote:
Exactly. If you take a look at Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion, you will see that all options were offered, and the option of *showing the photo inline* (instead of just a link) got the most votes of all.
This shows me that you are right that majority vote is not the right way to determine the correct result.
:-) Interesting. What would you say if the voters had voted differently?
Well, to be clear. The way that I would vote is something like this, ranking my own preferences for the articles [[clitoris]] and [[penis]]q:
1. "medical" photo/diagram on the page 2. link to "medical" photo/diagram 3. no photo at all 4. any variant of a 'porno' style photo
That's the way I would vote, and quite possibly is the way you would vote as well. But I do not think that our #1 choice would win, because I think that #2 would win. And I would be fine with that, I think it's a perfectly acceptable compromise.
It's not about whose viewpoint is correct. It's about not implicitly and selectively endorsing the view that the image is offensive.
It's also about not implicitly and selectively endorsing the view that the image is *not* offensive. We can't as a matter of NPOV policy automatically privilege either position.
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.
I don't agree with this. This is not "no point of view" -- it is a specific and highly undesirable (for most people) point of view that says that we're going to shove images down the readers throat unless they are so bad that 95% of the editors don't like them.
The articles are supposed to reflect consensus and compromise among editors with many different perspectives. If there's a case where, say, 70% of the people think that an image should not be shown, then how can we argue with a straight face that the article is neutral and satisfactory to both opponents and advocates? We can't.
That's just a complete abandonment of the principles of wiki editing in favor of a decree that Wikipedia ought to publish pictures even when consensus does not support it, even when there is significant dispute.
I think I see where we disagree now. Your position is that we should show the image in all cases unless 95% of the people think it should not be shown, and that this should be a policy which overrides consensus and compromise.
Um, no, I think that when 95% of the people think it should not be shown, that *is* a consensus.
But what of the case where 70% think it should not be shown, 30% think that it should be shown? What of the case where if we did a Condorcet vote, "show it behind a link" would be the clear winner? What of the case where almost everyone indicates a preference one way or the other (split 70%/30%) but also notes that putting it behind a link would be an acceptable compromise?
In such a case, there would be a consensus for putting it behind a link, and you'd still say that we should override consensus to push your own so-called "anti-censorship" point of view.
--Jimbo