On 2/17/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
I have read all that has been said on this matter on the mailing list with some attention (and admittedly, frustration stemming from the palpable intractability of the inherent issues). I find Tim's view eye-opening, as usual.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
Fully agree that one won't ever fly as a basis of operations for any community of ours.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
I am not sure if it is useful to note, but purely logically speaking, the second position you describe (no 2.) is not fully integral, but can be broken into two separate positions, viz:
2. (a) Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial decisionmaking.
2. (b) Anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
From a purely logical standpoint, one might hold 2. (b) to be a
clear straw man argument without standing, as you posit, but nevertheless hold 2. (a) to be a valid stance, without internal contradiction.
If, to play the devils advocate here for a moment, I wanted to attempt to justify 2. (a), I would probably do it something like thus:
Since our editorial judgements are intended to attain to the highest useful standards of presentation of factual information and not the lowest, any low-ball standards are always irrelevant.
For text, we don't write "Josh is Gay", but use more encyclopedic forms like "Josh has a relationship with lifelong companion Kevin."
So in attaining to the best, we need not concern ourselves, in ultimo with avoiding the worst. Since the worst is not the best, it is enough for us to note that what it is is not-best, without any need to make note of the fact that it is the-worst.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
I really think what should be done is to approach the situation from the viewpoint of what is the *best* way to encyclopaedically illustrate articles about any legendary figure.
Personally I do think some of the images in that muhammed article do not infact serve to inform the reader about any relevant matter of encyclopaedic note.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]