Zoney wrote: I've marked several messages in this thread for reply, but really Zoney here and John Lee have said it all much better than I could. I completely agree with their points. I desperately want Wikipedia to be a project with a reputation for good content - if it becomes effectively a shock site it won't be that any more. I would say a vast majority of readers* would not expect to see the most explicit of images - even on articles dealing with the subject (goatse on [[goatse]] being the much used example). What this is about for me is expectation - how can someone know to turn off images if they are not expecting this apparently reputable encyclopaedia to show such images? And why should anyone need to turn off images to use an encyclopaedia? There is a level at which I see the points some are making here, and some with views different from mine who's opinions I respect - and I have moved my own boundaries in response to that. But there is also a level at which I can't, and extreme views that I have no understanding or respect for. I truly hope that these views won't carry the day. I've written more than I intended - I think this thread has mostly deteriorated beyond usefulness and all I really intended to say was the first paragraph here. Frankly I would love to wash my hands of the whole subject and go back to updating the Grammy Awards - but I care too much about this project to not state my views on this very important subject. --sannse *74% of statistics are made up on the spot -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), Puddl Duk <puddlduk(a)yahoo.com> wrote: But it does make wikipedia as unsafe as a chatroom for children. I have no argument with that. All i'm saying is leave the kiddies out of it. Theresa