If you possess a technical solution or are aware of
how to construct
one, please feel free to suggest it. If it's viable and doesn't
present a significant problem to our attempts to be a quality, neutral
encyclopaedia, maybe we can <s>railroad the discussion to push it
through</s> develop a solid consensus so we can deal with the actual
article, which is lousy.
Cheers
WilyD
On Feb 4, 2008 2:06 PM, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I grew up jewish, so I was exposed early to the
concept of a *totally
forbidden depiction* -- in judaism's case, it's the name of god, not
the figure. I'm not religious, but seeing the concept at age seven
lets you understand it sort of intuitively. I remember reading a
study showing that insulting language activates the same neural paths
as when someone is physically harmed; for a religious muslim, seeing
an image of muhammad probably feels something like that.
I think we have to take at face value a lot of the plaintive comments
in the petition -- "we are people too", etc. Whoever *started* the
petition was probably trying to rouse a crowd, but the *signatories*
seem mostly to think that the depiction of mohammad is a deliberate
insult aimed at them. The least we can do, really, is to make sure
that nobody sees a muhammad picture who doesn't want to; if we do that
properly, the interface will make it self-evident that we actually
care what religious muslims think (at least in terms of not trying to
offend them any more than we'd try to offend anyone else), which is
partly what this seems to be about.
On Feb 4, 2008 5:05 AM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ben Yates
<ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We should provide an alternate
"Mohammad" page without any images on
it. Telling people to edit their javascript is silly; most people
aren't nearly tech savvy enough to understand what that even means
(for example, they have to first understand that a web page can be
displayed differently for different users).
There is a rather fundamental flaw in this proposal (actually, in
both): They don't want a page where they can look at without having to
see an image that is said to be that of its founder, they want the
picture removed completely. The javascript/css-option is only meant as
an alibi, without any chance to actually appease those who prefer
censorship over content they don't agree with. The more complicated
the option is, the longer it might serve as a diversion. A better
choice would be a patch the firefox sources that disables rendering of
images that contain "muhammad" (in different spellings) that needs
recompilation of firefox.
Mathias
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: