[WikiEN-l] Re: troubled.

Wed May 12 16:27:38 UTC 2004

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Rich-
> > 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.
> 
   ...<large snip>...
> To cite your own example, if we
> started censoring .. uh,  
> excuse me, "masking" images of women's faces like
> that, I would 100%  
> certainly leave the project, as would probably many
> others. And the  
> argument for doing that is no stronger or weaker
> than the argument for  
> masking the clitoris photo. In fact, I predict that
> if we masked *all*  
> somewhat sexually explicit pictures (penises,
> buttocks, breasts ..) in  
> this way, several people would be annoyed and/or
> leave the project.
> 

Wow, I sure used a poor example to support my own
cause, and then didn't explain myself either. What I
was thinking at the time was that we should mask
photos of women's faces from a culture that has a
taboo about showing women's faces, ie a photo from a
culture that would be offensive in that same culture.
I was not thinking that the implication was that we
would mask *all* photos of women's faces.

Obviously, my logic was muddled (I'll plead the usual
excuse of trying to think clearly on too much coffee
and too little sleep). 

Just in case anyone might have the wrong idea, let me
make it plain that I am not in favor of removing *any*
images based on their offensiveness to anyone, or of
blocking any images from anyone. I am also not
suggesting that we mask all images of women's faces.

Personally, I have no interest in viewing photos of an
execution by decapitation. Some might say that I
should view them for my own good -- they may be right
and I may view them despite my aversion. But to force
me to view them in order to read about the event is
certainly forcing a POV.

One might suggest that there is near universal
agreement that those images should be masked (or would
you say censored?). But if the goal is to achieve
"near universal offensiveness", what better way to
achieve it than to display such images? Why have *any*
images masked?

Any restriction on content betrays a POV. Having no
restriction on content betrays a POV.

The truth is that Wikipedia *does* project a strong
point of view, or several of them
-Information should be freely available
-Wikipedia should be restricted to verifiable
information, of some importance (however that's
defined)
-That topics should be presented evenly, with
criticisms, so that the reader can decide for
themselves based on the facts
-That conversation should be rational and devoid of
personal attacks
-That disputes should be resolved democratically (if
not by a popular vote, then by a vote of
representatives)

I strongly agree with all these POV's in Wikipedia.
But let us recognize that they are POV's that are not
universally held. Wikipedia takes a stand.

At issue here is what stand Wikipedia will take on
images that some find offensive. There is no way to
avoid POV on this topic.

I assert that Wikipedia should take reasonable steps
to remove as many barriers to accessing information as
possible, even when the barrier is socially imposed.
Let people access the information without forcing them
to violate social taboos.

If I understand you correctly, you would want to
require a very high percentage (90-95%?) of voters to
agree before masking an image. In other words, it
would only take 10% to prevent the masking of an
image. That certainly gives a large amount of power to
a small number of people. 10% can force 90% to view an
offensive image if they want to access the
information.

I suggest a much lower threshold -- say 30%. In other
words, 30% of the voters could force 70% to use an
extra mouse click to view the image. The cost to the
70% is low. The benefit is a Wikipedia that is taking
steps to be culturally sensitive.

With respect,
-Rich Holton

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