[WikiEN-l] Re: troubled.

Wed May 12 06:49:51 UTC 2004

EM = Erik Moeller
me = me (Rich Holton)

me> How much is lost if we "mask" an image that a
me> significant number of people find offensive?
> 
EM> Quite a bit, in my opinion. By doing so, we
EM> emphasize this particular  
EM> bias. For example, if we censor images of body
parts
EM> (connected to their  
EM> body *cough*), we emphasize the bias of modern US
EM> society against nudity,  
EM> a bias which is by no means universal.
> 
In this case we may be emphasizing the bias of modern
US society against nudity, but in another case we may
be emphasizing the bias of another culture -- for
example, one in which a woman's face is not to be seen
in public. 

EM> Of course you can argue that by not censoring
EM> ourselves, we become biased  
EM> *against* that viewpoint. But that is not true if
EM> our lack of censorship  
EM> is consistent. Then we are merely biased in favor
of
EM> being inclusive  
EM> which, in my opinion, is a necessary bias for an
EM> encyclopedia, just like  
EM> we are pro-knowledge rather than anti-knowledge
and
EM> pro-neutrality rather  
EM> than pro-atheism or pro-theism, etc.
> 
Well, first of all, I would not argue that we are or
are not censoring ourselves. I never suggested
removing images; I only suggested allowing the user
the choice to view the article and not view the
images. 

Second, I don't follow how masking the images is
*less* inclusive than not masking them. Do you mean
more inclusive of images, or more inclusive of people?
My argument is precisely that masking the images is
more inclusive of people, without excluding any
images. 

The cost of catering to those who are offended by the
images is a mouse-click from those who are not. The
cost of catering to those who would be offended by
having masked images is the non-participation of those
who are offended by the images.

I agree with you that an encyclopedia, particularly
Wikipedia, needs to be pro-knowledge and pro-NPOV. But
another guiding principle of Wikipedia is that it is
pro-user/pro-reader. We go out of our way to make it
accessible to as many people as possible. Why not
apply that to the display of offensive images?

Again, I am NOT suggesting the elimination of the
images. Only presenting them in a way that improves
the "accessibility" and usability of Wikipedia.

With respect, 
Rich Holton

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 