On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 22/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't see how you can compare these cases. One is an editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it wants.
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures
That does not fulfil the demand for removal of the images from Wikipedia.
- and, more
importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we, er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly different-looking one! Win-win.
And we have thrown away our principles to appease religious zealots - who still won't be satisfied. Lose-Lose.
A situation where neither side gets any of what it wants cannot accurately be described as a compromise.
So you perceive the only adequate solution is to cave in to one side or the other? I would hope the project was willing to at least *aim* higher...
I perceive that attempting to appease the fundamentalists by a so-called compromise solution will be the thin end of the wedge, and there will be no chance of our resisting their further demands. Appeasement is weakness - I would hope the project is strong enough to stand up for the things in which it believes.