[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix

[teun spaans]

"Not sure if..."
I think exactly because you know both worlds, islam and wikipedia, you are
highly qualified to comment. And of course you are biased, to some extent we
probably all are biased - but without realizing it.

" Because they consider (muslims) and believe "
I assume that you mean sunni muslims, as from further up in this discussion
i understood that in shitism opinions slightly differ on this topic.

"increase its educational value, null."
May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the
illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the
opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile
> > an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all
> > points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about
> > this topic. More information and education will help to guide more
> > informed decisions on this topic.
> >
> > Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
>
>
> Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be
> biased, but here is a reply:
>
> >
> > 1) Who exactly is offended by this and why?
>
> Who:
> I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these
> pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands
> posten
> article.
> Why:
> Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any
> other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some
> artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever
> born
> and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to
> show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and
> offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression'
>  or
> 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them
> and
> to their religion.
>
> >
> > 2) Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
> > only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to
> > have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily
> > viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
>
> On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a
> link to the images.
>
> >
> > 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
> > display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and
> > are they closely integrated into the article?
>
> imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of
> expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free.
> beside
> that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its
> educational value, null.
>
>
> >
> >
>
> > <censored> :P
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > --Andrew Whitworth
> >
> >
> --user:alnokta
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
test