Right. I'd always been against the image per [[User:Voice of All/Image concerns]].
It a) Adds practically nothing and is not informative, b) Is extremely inflammatory. There is just no serious reason to keep it. I take pragmatic criteria on this sort of stuff. I don't care what the Koran or Hadith say, so reducto ad absurdem arguments about "ban all images of people" are beside the point.
Jimmy Wales 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.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- 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.
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l