Jimmy-
That's the way I would vote, and quite possibly is the way you would vote as well.
Yes, but only because the voting system would force me to rank my choices like that, even if I find only one of them to be in compliance with our policy.
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.
True. I have already addressed this argument. We don't do that because we aren't selective.
We can't as a matter of NPOV policy automatically privilege either position.
There are no NPOV issues at all as long as we don't take a position. There are issues of Wikiquette, WikiLove etc., I agree with you on that point. But it's not an NPOV issue if we don't say "Look at *this* image, but don't look at *this* image!" (nor would it be an NPOV issue if we said "Don't look at *any* image until you explicitly request it", but most people would find that option unacceptable for an encyclopedia).
In order to address the issue of expressing *respect* for the other point of view (which is a part of Wikiquette), I have no problem with - a disclaimer at the beginning of the page for pages that contain images widely considered offensive - a "hide all images link" next to it. - moving images widely considered offensive to a point where they aren't immediately visible, so that the reader has a fair opportunity to hide them - allowing a user preference to hide such images by default when viewing a page - until these features are all in place, setting the threshold lower (70- 80%) to avoid offense
I'd say I'm willing to make quite a few concessions here, and I agree that such concessions are required by policy. However, it is not the NPOV policy, it is Wikiquette. This is also a very important policy for helping people to work together, and it would be foolish and wrong to point to neutrality as a justification for not searching compromises. However, it would also be foolish to treat NPOV as something it isn't, which could very well lead us down a road where we compromise on matters which we shouldn't compromise on (namely the very neutrality of our encyclopedia).
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.
Hm, that's an interesting claim. On the basis of which poll do you claim that most people don't want to adopt this proposed policy, with and/or without the above additional measures?
Yes, it *is* a point of view to say that we show all images by default, however, it is not a POV pertaining to any individual article, just like any other policy is itself a point of view about how to build an encyclopedia, including the NPOV policy itself. The key point is that it is not in violation of said NPOV policy, which does not say "We must hold no opinions about how to build an encyclopedia" (which would be nonsensical) but which does say that articles must not endorse specific opinions. By going with whatever the majority prefers, we would do that. By showing all images by default we don't.
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?
If, say, 70% of the people think that the criticisms of Mother Teresa are "too dominant", how can we argue with a straight face that the article is neutral? Simple. By looking at the neutral point of view policy, which is not about majorities, but about certain ways to express facts and opinions neutrally. Now, I agree with you entirely on the need to search compromise, and that compromise may include temporary transgressions against the spirit and letter of the actual NPOV policy. But to say that an article must make the majority happy to be neutral is a nonsensical claim. In fact, when we *have* to choose between being nice and being neutral, being neutral should always come out on top.
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?
You are searching compromise in the wrong department. You want to make it mandatory to compromise on our neutrality, while I seek ways to preserve neutrality while still making all sides of the dispute happy. Your solution is the easy way out and a good way to "keep the peace", but it is not a good way to find true neutrality. Instead, please help me in implementing and advocating solutions which make available additional *choices* to end users, so that we don't have to simply go with whatever the majority currently prefers.
Regards,
Erik