On Feb 8, 2008 6:20 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Chris Howie schrieb:
- 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.
- 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.