[WikiEN-l] Can we think about trying the "show" solution?

[Oldak Quill]

On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > > No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion
>  > >  and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do
>  > >  for *every other editorial decision*...
>  >
>  > We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy
>  > to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a
>  > policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but
>  > there is usually a policy to apply.

>  But say we do have such a tag on [[Clitoris]]. Why would this be
>  inherently a bad thing? There are no shortage of perfectly legitimate
>  reasons a sizable subset of readers (& editors) would not want an
>  immediately visible image on the article, which have nothing to do
>  with prurience or a desire for censorship!
>
>  Indeed, the reasons are a lot more justifiable to the general
>  population than the Muhammad ones. The phrases "public computer rooms"
>  and "embarrassment" should explain a lot of them...

Could you name a few legitimate reasons why we shouldn't have an
immediately viewable image of a clitoris in our [[Clitoris]] article?
Surely those who don't wish to be embarrassed by what they are looking
at on a public computer and would feel embarrassed by looking at an
image of a clitoris, wouldn't start reading an article entitled
"Clitoris" on a public computer?

In the article [[hand]] there is a picture of a hand. In the article
[[face]] there is a picture of a face. In fact, in every article we
have relating to a body part, there is a picture of that body part.
Images confer information that text cannot and are very useful to
explaining a subject. So, since we are showing an image of a body part
in the context of education and information, what legitimate reason is
there to break this policy? We are not showing the image to be
gratuitous or to shock or to entertain or to titillate. The only
reason to object to images of sexual organs in our context is
prudishness and a desire for censorship.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)