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 -- ---<>--- --