On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:40:09 +0100, "Mathias Schindler"
<mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be perfectly consistent with the usual effects of such a
> (self-)censorship tool. On the other hand, since naming a teddy bear
> Muhammad can bring you into trouble, looking at one with that name is
> already dangerously close. Thanks to the power of ASCII art, switching
> to links/lynx text based browsers won't work either.
Which brings up the question of why it seems to be fine to name
people after Muhammad but not teddy bears. But trying to apply logic
of any sort to religion is futile.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
In a message dated 2/21/2008 3:55:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
But if the
picture is somehow notable to this article, either in itself or as an
example of a depiction which was typical in a certain culture/at a
certain time (*), then I can see how it *could* be well integrated
into the article.>>
-----------------------------------
Can anyone please respond to my most cogent remark, that an illustration of
this exact same type appears in the Islam article in the Encyclopedia
Brittanica.
Surely no one here, is suggesting that we, must be *better* than EB in the
sensitivity area?
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not
censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will
continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even
putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a
prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the
"depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can
exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often
interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly
POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted.
In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against
"fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some
justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular,
Western
In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:19:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to
the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance
our mission?>>
-----------------------------
Because images of exactly how large and succulent certain body parts can be
are informative? Reverse the question, how does censoring certain things
enhance our mission?
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/21/2008 5:28:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net writes:
Christianity-related articles, as Christianity did (almost)
always rely on these visual impressions. It's just documenting
an important aspect of this religion. But Islam just works the
other way around.>>
------------------------------
Can we get past the false impression that Islam is monolithic?
It's been pointed out over and over here and on-wiki that certain branches
of Islam have *no problem* with the image. Islam is not a single font of
dogma. It, like Christianity has multiple conflicting rulings.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/21/2008 1:43:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
Are the admins, who's "chops get busted" deprived of their privileges?>>
-----------------------
People have been de-sysopped yes.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
There are only a few things, that accumulate faster in our
articles than "Trivia"-sections: categories, weblinks, and
flag icons come to mind.
But the offender I want to concentrate on (yep, driven
by the Muhammad controversy) is the useless or misleading
image. As this has become a "customer driven (not-quite-)encyclopedia",
the attitude of the majority of our customers, to prefer pictures
over textual content will always be a good argument for adding just
another image.
So, we have pictures of [[Paul the Apostle]] of which only
can be said the the species of portrayed living being is
almost surely correct. Or the portraits of the victims
of [[Jack the Ripper]] which add nothing to an encyclopedia,
only give a strange feeling of the darker parts of a wax museum.
My favorite oddity is the "artistic impression", as promoted by
NASA, of e.g. [[90377 Sedna]] or a [[Black hole]]. NASA needs funding
and everything that gets public attention helps this, so I understand
their rationale for using these misleading and pointless pictures, but
what is our?
Anyway, and back to the religious part of this. It's obviously
OK that there are pictures of Jesus and crosses and saints and whatsnot
in many Christianity-related articles, as Christianity did (almost)
always rely on these visual impressions. It's just documenting
an important aspect of this religion. But Islam just works the
other way around. Providing artistic impressions of Muhammad in
the Muhammad article itself doesn't serve to actually show him, nor
does it serve to show the Islam's picture of Mohammad.
Regards,
Peter
[[User:Pjacobi]]
wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games!
http://games.entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/games/free
Chicago Sun Times, February 17, 2008 Sunday
Zay N. Smith
QT on the Internet; Pg. A26
"Muslims protest Wikipedia images of Muhammad."
This means that if you go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad, you will
be showing disrespect for religious fundamentalists who want to
control what you know and see.
So do not go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad.
Remember. It is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad that you should not go to.
- d.