[WikiEN-l] A call for moderation

[Peter Ansell]

On 18/02/2008, Screamer <scream at datascreamer.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Tim Starling wrote:
> >
> >> What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in
> >> question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of
> >> those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me
> >> that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people
> >> refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary
> >> to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
> >>
> >
> > I agree very much with Tim.  The Wikipedia way has always been to
> > attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but
> > the most unreasonable people.
> >
> > Here are two unreasonable positions:
> >
> > 1. Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
> > Wikipedia completely.
> >
> > 2. Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
> > decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something
> > offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more
> > offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
> >
> > Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
> >
> > So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform
> > in a mature, responsible way.
> >
> > It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who
> > might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the
> > moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general
> > desire to not censor Wikipedia.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> Here is a thought.  Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same
> manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
>
> ./scream

If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they
stuck open or closed in that case?

Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a
useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just
requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship
with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than
pragmatically useful in my opinion.

Peter