Erik Moeller wrote:
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).
Possibly you've already addressed this, so please be gentle with me as I try to understand.
Apply the same logic above to any particular _text_ in Wikipedia. Should we have a policy that no text should be deleted, because it is inherently POV to say "Look at *this* text, but don't look at *this* text"?
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?
It's my general sense of this discussion, and a prediction based on what I know of Wikipedians generally. Perhaps I'm wrong. In reading all the comments so far, I think that most people seem to think that in borderline cases, an acceptable compromise is to keep the image, but behind a link.
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.
NPOV is not about majorities, but it *is* a social concept. (I note that my original exposition of NPOV, which I still regard as policy, has been edited out of the Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View article.)
The Wiki software model, not majority vote, drives things. If 1 person right this minute thinks that the criticisms of Mother Theresa are "too dominant" in the article (which is surely possible as a valid criticism of any article), then they can go and change it. Of course, their change is also going to have to satisfy you, which may be difficult of course, but you aren't an irrational ideologue, and so long as they aren't either, then our experience shows that positive change is possible in virtually all cases.
NPOV is not the same as "true" or "objective"; it is a subset of what is true and objective. It is a social concept first and foremost, even though the current presentation on Wikipedia has obscured that.
--Jimbo