On 05/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 4:28 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that in the general case, under for example, UK law, if there are types of information that are contained in the wikipedia that racial groups consider extremely obscene, which are impossible to avoid in other than this way you indicate above, then this suggestion amounts to racism. (The UK defines racism as anything that intentionally or unintentionally has a significant negative effect on a racial group; and while you may not be able to define Moslems as a racial group, I expect you could find similar issues with actual racial groups.)
I think that blocking all the images on the wikipedia meets that criteria, and hence can be defined (at least in the UK definition, which I would suppose would be notable) as racist.
IMO that definition of racism is way too broad. This is, for example, not racism (or "religionism") at all. What we are dealing with is a fundamental incompatibility between the goals of our project and the beliefs of a particular religious group. I could form a religion that hates the word "taco" -- are we gonna cater to that too?
Political correctness is a death trap. Sanity is insanity, insanity is sanity. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...
there's afew article in wikipedia that question whether there is such a thing as "race" based on DNA - so would gladly go along with ethnicity or something. Definately a "racist" crime would have to be based on ones ethnicity.