[WikiEN-l] Re: troubled

Wed May 12 10:08:01 UTC 2004

> I'm not sure if you meant this literally,
> figuratively, or sarcastically. If you really meant
> that a picture must be "universally considered
> offensive" before if is moved behind a link, I must
> disagree.

It was meant figuratively rather than literally. I am talking about 95- 
100% agreement. If I added a photo of the decapitated hostage, Nick Berg, 
to an article and insisted on voting on it, I'm sure that's pretty much 
what we would get - 95-100% in favor of removing the image or replacing it 
with one just showing the hostage when he was still alive.

If I dare say... I think we also said "display image that hold an interest". 

Now, the picture of Nick decapitated is interesting (but gross).
But why would his picture "before decapitation" be interesting ? After all, he is just a human being, with nothing special but to be unfortunately one of the numerous victim of a war.

I see not well why Nick with a head is more interesting than any of the picture of those people who died in the towers. People who were put in sept11, because they are "no one special".

Again, please, no double standards. 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040512/d2a58da9/attachment.htm 