Right. I'd always been against the image per [[User:Voice of All/Image
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
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
that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people
refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually
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:
1. Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
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.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
View this message in context:
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com