Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Exactly. If you take a look at Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion, you will
> see that all options were offered, and the option of *showing the photo
> inline* (instead of just a link) got the most votes of all.
This shows me that you are right that majority
vote is not the right
way to determine the correct result.
:-) Interesting. What would you say if the voters had voted differently?
Well, to be clear. The way that I would vote is something like this,
ranking my own preferences for the articles [[clitoris]] and [[penis]]q:
1. "medical" photo/diagram on the page
2. link to "medical" photo/diagram
3. no photo at all
4. any variant of a 'porno' style photo
That's the way I would vote, and quite possibly is the way you would
vote as well. But I do not think that our #1 choice would win,
because I think that #2 would win. And I would be fine with that, I
think it's a perfectly acceptable compromise.
It's not about whose viewpoint is correct.
It's about not implicitly and
selectively endorsing the view that the image is offensive.
It's also about not implicitly and selectively endorsing the view that
the image is *not* offensive. We can't as a matter of NPOV policy
automatically privilege either position.
If we do this, then we *selectively* endorse this
point of view. If
we selectively show it, we endorse the opposite view. If we show all
images where there is no consensus that they are offensive, we
endorse *no* point of view.
I don't agree with this. This is not "no point of view" -- it is a
specific and highly undesirable (for most people) point of view that
says that we're going to shove images down the readers throat unless
they are so bad that 95% of the editors don't like them.
The articles are supposed to reflect consensus and compromise among
editors with many different perspectives. If there's a case where,
say, 70% of the people think that an image should not be shown, then
how can we argue with a straight face that the article is neutral and
satisfactory to both opponents and advocates? We can't.
That's just a complete abandonment of the principles of wiki editing
in favor of a decree that Wikipedia ought to publish pictures even
when consensus does not support it, even when there is significant
dispute.
I think I see
where we disagree now. Your position is that we should
show the image in all cases unless 95% of the people think it should
not be shown, and that this should be a policy which overrides
consensus and compromise.
Um, no, I think that when 95% of the people think it should not be shown,
that *is* a consensus.
But what of the case where 70% think it should not be shown, 30% think
that it should be shown? What of the case where if we did a Condorcet
vote, "show it behind a link" would be the clear winner? What of the
case where almost everyone indicates a preference one way or the other
(split 70%/30%) but also notes that putting it behind a link would be
an acceptable compromise?
In such a case, there would be a consensus for putting it behind a
link, and you'd still say that we should override consensus to push
your own so-called "anti-censorship" point of view.
--Jimbo