I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if
the proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that
way until the finer controls become available.
The accusation that those that feel such an image should not be inline
in the article are trying to create "bowdlerpedia" is just too much -
and is just as out of line as if I had accused those wanting to keep
the image in of trying to create pornopedia.
Discussing and deciding where the line should be is what will make
wikipedia a generally acceptable and accessible encylopdia.
Most encyclopedia's include images or topics that some may object to
but that is the nature of an encyclopedia but they will accept that is
the trade off with something that tries to cover everything. However,
at the very least - this autofellation images, and the goats image
should be out, and maybe other things should be out too.
The argument that nothing should be out will IMHO result in such bad
publicity that our mission will be frustrated.
Jim
==QUESTION=Why
is the compromise offered by those that find such
material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it
accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's reasonable. Inlining is
far
better, however, for technical reasons that I outlined earlier.
Hopefully it will be generally possible in a not-too-distant future
version of Wikipedia to let the user control what he sees using
server-side controls instead of his browser controls; I do not expect this
to appease those who seem to want a bowdlerpedia, however.
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]