Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the
word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier
for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter
existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet
another limitation of their expression, and that instruction creep of this
kind is both undesirable (because it limits appropriate use of certain
words, concepts and images) and unnecessary (because only the group in
question knows at any given time what it does and does not find acceptable
to it).
Well, I do not find your arguments convincing. I am in agreement with
several others who have indicated that if we as a community cannot come to
some agreement about not openly displaying patently offensive images, then I
may need to reconsider how much I want to be associated with such a
community. I mean, I love the openness and freedom of Wikipedia, but there
are limits to most everything within the scale of human experience. I think
we need to aim for the semi-mythical Golden Mean in which the vast majority
of the content is acceptable to the vast majority of people, even if it
means excluding or "bowlderizing" a tiny fraction of content at the extreme
edges.
Bkonrad