[WikiEN-l] How much?

Wed Jan 14 21:36:09 UTC 2004

To sort of clarify my viewpoint on this:

I'm not advocating that we remove any of these images, unless they're 
simply completely uninformative.  I'm merely requesting that we not put 
them in-line, and instead have them as a link (an internal [[media:...]] 
link).  Simply an accurately labeled link, not a "WARNING: Some readers 
might find this offensive" link or anything like that.

Personally, I have no problem seeing these images, but I don't want to 
*always* see them.  Having seen our clitoris photograph once, I don't 
need to see it again if I happen to check the article again for some 
information.  If, for some reason, I do wish to see it again, I can 
always click on "photograph of a clitoris" and do so.  Same with 
suicide-methods photographs: I think some could be informative (say, a 
wrist-slitting one), but it should be possible to read the text without 
seeing them every time.

This still, of course, requires some standards for what is potentially 
bothersome enough to include as a link instead of as an inline 
photograph, and I agree these standards should not be overly 
restrictive.  But I do think they should be somewhat more restrictive 
than what some others are proposing.  I'd actually be alright with nude 
photographs of people inline in the [[human]] article, if done in a 
scientific style "standing upright with arms at their sides" way.  But 
I'd prefer close-up photographs of genitalia be placed in a link.  
Basically anything a large number of people are likely to be somewhat 
shocked by.

Since it came up, same goes actually with [[lung]]: a diagram of a lung 
should be fine to include of course, but an actual photograph of, say, a 
removed lung, or a lung in situ in a cut-open chest, or so on, is 
something a lot of people don't want to see every time they read that 
article.  Similarly with photos of entrails in [[intestines]], photos of 
open-heart surgery in [[heart]], and so on ("click here for a photograph 
of open-heart surgery").

I guess I don't see why it'd really be censorship either, since we're 
just shuffling the information around, not actually removing it or even 
making it hard to get.

-Mark