Correction: The people who cared about spoiler templates decided
against spoiler templates. The people who thought it was a nonissue
didn't participate. It would be hugely dysfunctional to act as though
that particular instance sets a binding precedent towards all future
instances, even ones that -- like this, and decidedly unlike spoiler
templates -- are important.
On Feb 8, 2008 9:35 AM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 6:20 AM, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Chris Howie schrieb:
1. We are not trying to pacify people, we are
trying to write an
encyclopedia. To that extent what people think of us is their
problem.
I disagree, because I do care what people think of us.
I care what people think of us to the extent that we are fulfilling
our mission, to provide a neutral free content encyclopedia. If a
group don't like some of that content because it goes against rules
that exist only within that group, that's where I don't really care
that much.
2. We do
not censor ourselves. This includes opt-in/out mechanisms
that are censorship bearing the form of a reasonable compromise.
There is a reason we did not go this direction for spoiler templates,
specifically because it would lead to doing exactly what we are
discussing right now.
The reason we did not go for spoiler templates is because it would
lead to a reasonable compromise? It seems to me, that you actually
want Muslims to see an image of their prophet, which seems to be
a ridiculous effort.
We decided against spoiler templates because it is editorializing
content inappropriately. It is not our job to decide what our readers
don't want to see; it is theirs and theirs alone.
If Muslims do not want to see *depictions* of their prophet (that is
what's forbidden to my understanding) I have nothing against that.
However, I do not think it is Wikipedia's job to shield readers from
content they may find inappropriate; that seems to be where we
disagree.
This whole deal seems to be "I don't like something so it's your job
to make sure I don't see it." No. If you don't like something then
it's *your* job.
There are
plenty of things I'm offended by on Wikipedia. But you know
what? I've learned to stay away from them.
Why do you want the majority of Muslims to stay away from the Muhammad
article? What is the encyclopedic value of such an image? Are there
any authentic images of Muhammad?
Honestly I don't care if they do or if they don't stay away. But it
seems to me that if they're offended by depictions of their prophet
that's the simplest solution. Other solutions may be disabling images
in their browser or using JavaScript hacks to hide the images.
I have no problem with them reading or editing such articles. I have
a problem with them dictating what we do with those articles, which is
essentially what's happening.
The value of the images is to provide additional cultural context for
the subject of the article. I do not know if any authentic images
exist (for some definition of the word "authentic").
I've
learned that we're
trying to do something useful here and that the presence of offensive
material does not mean that someone is trying to offend me. If we
start giving in to demands like this then we obviously do not care
about writing a neutral encyclopedia, we do not care about topic
coverage, and we sure as hell do not care if people walk all over us.
If we don't, we do indeed *deliberately* try to piss off religious
readers and editors. Islam is btw not the only religion
(see [[Aniconism in the Bahá'í Faith]]).
Not caving in the face of demands like this is not deliberatly trying
to piss people off. It's simply not caving.
I don't see how respecting religious believes
without censoring
any content (I don't consider the need to click a link "censorship"),
would be derogatory to topic coverage.
This all depends what kind of link we are referring to. Thus far the
demand has been that we remove the images entirely, which is simply
ridiculous.
To the contrary I am convinced,
that policies inviting people of different faith would result in
broader coverage and a more neutral encyclopedia. There is no way,
that religious topics would be as throughly covered by only atheistic
or agnostic editors.
I agree with this insofar as such policies do not compromise the goal
of the project.
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOTCENSORED. I know that policy follows actions, etc, but
out of curiosity: is there any policy, guideline, or essay that
supports what is being suggested here?
WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack
regardless of the manner in which it is done."
Invalid. Explain how having artistic representations of Muhammad in
the Muhammad article constitutes "insulting or disparaging an editor."
People choosing to be offended doesn't mean that what they are
offended by is a personal attack.
WP:PROFANITY "Including information about
offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
That seems to strengthen my case, not yours. By way of example, some
people may find images of the human anatomy offensive, but they
illustrate a topic.
This policy would apply if there was content in the Muhammad article
saying "Muhammad sucks" or similar. That is not the case here.
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l