On Feb 19, 2008 9:38 AM, Raphael Wegmann <wegmann(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:51:29PM +0000, David Gerard
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that
to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an
encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV
and don't care.
I am beginning to wonder, whether the "good guys" are still interested
in writing an encyclopedia. It seems to me, that acting "on principle"
(no censorship - whatever that means) in this case is destroying more
than it adds. I sometimes even get the impression, that people enjoy
the strength of the inside pressure group ("you are offended? good!
If you change the pictures, I'll revert and block you. :-b").
Do we have a neutral and unbiased article, when it is necessary to
protect pages and block editors en mass?
I don't think so.
The "Good guys" are interested in writing an encyclopaedia, just don't
mistake the "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces
and lamblast everything else you don't like about their
religion/religion in general" crowd as the good guys. There is a
short list somewhere, however.
For what it's worth, very few editors are blocked at Muhammad, which
is probably good, but definitely a result of heavy protection &
various other measures. That said, feel free to look at any time in
the history with no protection - you'll see that it's a complete,
probably unresolvable mess. The "no images" crowd is not the only
group that shows up there with an axe or ten to grind. Externally
co-ordinated groups have been a problem there before, and doubtlessly
will be again. Not only Islamic groups, but (for instance) one trying
to insert the word "paedophile" as much as possible into every article
that mentions Muhammad.