On 2/17/08, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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:
1. 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.
2. 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]]