<P>How can we really determine that the name is "unambiguous"ly <BR>"offensive"? Perhaps the person is a very religious Christian.
<P>Zoe
<P> <B><I>james duffy <jtdirl@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Brion,<BR>I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening <BR>argument' comment. The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a <BR>clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused <BR>offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only <BR>bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous <BR>offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you <BR>regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!<BR><BR>People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because <BR>their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back <BR>telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as <BR>seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else. Your <BR>continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think <BR>that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because <BR>religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of <BR>causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But <BR>mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest <BR>political correctness? As a non religious persion myself, I find your <BR>attitude and complete inability to see the scale of the offence caused <BR>puzzling, to put it at its politest. I thought pluralism is concerned with <BR>showing similar respect to all sides equally. Or are religious <BR>sensitivities, specifically sensitivities towards christians, less important <BR>that other sensitivities, specifically ones to do with oral sex?<BR><BR>Please explain why causing offensive to religious people is a 'huge <BR>improvement' on a pun on oral sex.<BR><BR>JT.<BR><BR><BR>>From: Brion Vibber <BRION@POBOX.COM><BR>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org<BR>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org<BR>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist<BR>>Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:01:37 -0800<BR>><BR>>On mar, 2003-01-28 at 11:53, james duffy wrote:<BR>> > One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership<BR>> > of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and<BR>> > took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and<BR>> > contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an<BR>> > encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was <BR>>on<BR>> > the brink of giving.<BR>><BR>>That would have made a _much_ more effective opening argument -- thank<BR>>you for following up with details.<BR>><BR>>Unfortunately, since Wikipedia didn't adopt a 'use your real name or<BR>>post anonymously' policy, the selection of nicks, and the process of<BR>>deciding what is and isn't acceptable, is always going to be arbitrary<BR>>and ex post facto. (Does "Tokerboy" give the professional appearence we<BR>>want to present to potential IP donors? Or even "Maveric149"?)<BR>><BR>>Cf. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?UseRealNames on MeatballWiki.<BR>><BR>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)<BR>><< signature.asc >><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online <BR>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>