I've had similar concerns with many articles as the GP (as clarified in the sibling comment): namely that so much of it is a clash of ideologies, and it's inconstant with my own. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with ideologues—I had enough of that as an elected public education official.
As a specific example, consider the pregnancy article already under question. In my mind, a reasonable compromise would be to move to image (not remove it) and put it behind a link labeled "image of nude pregnant woman" or a mask (like the spoiler codes in game forms) or some other easily identifiable method. I won't argue whether images like that has value or not [1], but the clash between opposing moral standards (if you'll pardon the potentially charged term) is pervasive in the talk pages.
There are some images that I don't feel the need to look at, and more particularly, don't wish my young children to look at. I understand that not everyone feels that way (I'm not telling anyone how to raise their kids), but by placing such images front-and-center, I feel blindsided or robbed of the choice to seek out such things. Yet on Wikipedia, this sort of perspective is consistently rejected ("No censorship!"). I see it as the amoral being preferred to the moral, and I'm uncomfortable supporting an organization that consistently acts in such a way. In recognition of opposing views I'm not suggesting that images like this be removed--just labeled or easily masked so that I can choose to see it if I want, and similarly choose not to.
I'm not trying to push my view on others, but Wikipedia (as embodied by its editors) pushes its view on me.
1: It seemed to me from the talk page that some of those in favor of keeping the nude pictures had emotional attachments to the image rather than objective reasoning.
As a specific example, consider the pregnancy article already under question. In my mind, a reasonable compromise would be to move to image (not remove it) and put it behind a link labeled "image of nude pregnant woman" or a mask (like the spoiler codes in game forms) or some other easily identifiable method. I won't argue whether images like that has value or not [1], but the clash between opposing moral standards (if you'll pardon the potentially charged term) is pervasive in the talk pages.
There are some images that I don't feel the need to look at, and more particularly, don't wish my young children to look at. I understand that not everyone feels that way (I'm not telling anyone how to raise their kids), but by placing such images front-and-center, I feel blindsided or robbed of the choice to seek out such things. Yet on Wikipedia, this sort of perspective is consistently rejected ("No censorship!"). I see it as the amoral being preferred to the moral, and I'm uncomfortable supporting an organization that consistently acts in such a way. In recognition of opposing views I'm not suggesting that images like this be removed--just labeled or easily masked so that I can choose to see it if I want, and similarly choose not to.
I'm not trying to push my view on others, but Wikipedia (as embodied by its editors) pushes its view on me.
1: It seemed to me from the talk page that some of those in favor of keeping the nude pictures had emotional attachments to the image rather than objective reasoning.