Chris Howie schrieb:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> Chris Howie schrieb:
<snip/>
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.
No, the whole deal seems to be whether we show a minimum of
respect
to our readers who happen to have a certain religious belief.
I'm all for respect, but I'm not for allowing groups to demand content
changes (or even meta-content changes as we are discussing). If we
make the change this time that will set a very dangerous precedent.
Dangerous? Because it could make WP more likable for prude readers,
if it helps them to avoid nudity in the future?
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.
Do you honestly think we can write a neutral
article on Muhammad,
if we offend those who consider him to be a prophet?
Yes, I do. Our goal is not to offend people, but if people are
offended by us achieving our goal, well, again that is their problem
and not ours.
Your claim, that neutrality needs offense is not convincing.
I'd rather say, that offense is a clear sign, that no consensus
has been reached yet.
Other solutions may be disabling images
in their browser or using JavaScript hacks to hide the images.
It doesn't seem
fair to me, that people with a certain believe have
to choose between seeing no image at all or hacking JavaScript code.
What exactly is the problem with providing an easy way to either
hide or show those images?
It doesn't seem fair to me that as someone who has no problem with
these images I should have to deal with mechanisms that assume I don't
want to see them.
Do you consider it fairer, that someone who has problems with
these images has to hack JavaScript code? By contrast the "mechanism"
of clicking a link is IMHO no big deal.
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.
Who is "them" vs "we"? Do I
belong to "we" or "them"?
It doesn't seem to me, that anybody is "dictating" anything or
at least "they" aren't very successful.
It is my understanding that numerous emails requesting that these
images be removed entirely are what has caused this entire discussion.
"Them" being Muslims who do not want us to use these images at all and
"we" being Wikipedians interested in topic coverage and neutrality
above all else. The groups are mutually exclusive, but are not a
dichotomy. Also understand that this grouping should be viewed as my
opinion and not as truth.
The groups are mutually exclusive, but are not a dichotomy? How's that?
Is your opinion untrue? It might as well be, that we all (even "them")
are interested in neutrality, but differ about what that means.
Not caving in the face of demands like this is not
deliberatly trying
to piss people off. It's simply not caving.
It can be both.
It can, but it's not. The perception of something does not make it reality.
Sometimes it does. Consider, that I want to refer to African
Americans by using the N-word. Well, the roots of that word only
denotes their skin color and isn't much different from calling
them "blacks". So what's the big deal?
Well, it might not be a big deal for me, but it is a big deal
for African Americans, because the N-word is perceived very
negative for its (historic) connotations.
If we remove the images or provide some
"hidden-until-you-click"
mechanism then we are saying that we don't care about being
encyclopedic if someone is offended enough to raise hell about it.
How does the need to click a link reduce encyclopedic-ity?
If we don't remove the images we are an
insensitive anti-Islam group.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I'd rather we be considered
insensitive than unecyclopedic, considering that we are an
encyclopedia.
Shouldn't we try to quantify those consequences as well?
I don't consider an additional link to result in a collapse
of our encyclopedic goal. Offending the second largest
religious group on this planet is rather huge, don't you think?
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.
Of course it is. But since we are open for reasonable arguments,
we can accept a compromise, can't we?
The issue with compromising in this case is that since we are arguing
sensitivity toward Muslims against Wikipedia policy, I don't see any
room for compromise.
Well, I don't see any conflict. Indeed Wikipedia policies don't
advertise irrelevant content, indeed they rather suggest consensus
building among editors of all religious affiliations.
<snip/>
Between being neutral and encyclopedic, and being
sensitive toward
Muslims, the only thing that exists is a bastardized encyclopedia that
is still somewhat offensive to Muslims. Nobody wins.
Well, it takes a lot of ignorance to believe that an article on
Muhammad, that offends those who consider him their prophet, is
anywhere near neutral.
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.
Well, you can use the same argument for every
personal attack in WP.
People *always* choose to be offended, if the "attack" is merely
a few bytes they *choose* to download.
No, you cannot. Personal attacks carry an intent to do harm and to
disparage another editor. Intent is important.
You cannot tell me, that you don't know that there are probably
thousands of people offended by those images. How can you insist
on keeping those images without intending or accepting that offense?
And by your logic, we should seriously consider any
case where
anything we write offends someone. Again, I can decide that "taco" is
an incredibly offensive word and demand we remove it or institute some
system so I can prevent myself from seeing it. I don't see any
difference at all, except there are more people involved.
There is another difference: I never demanded we remove them.
Please stop polemic.
Yes, they do.
OTOH WP does not display shock images even on the
article about them. I don't consider that to be *censorship*.
<snip/>
Ok, but seriously, I don't think there is much in common between these
cases. Shock images are intended to shock and offend, and that is it.
IMO it makes sense in this case to not include them in the article,
though I would not object to them being present (perhaps a few
paragraphs into the article).
Images of Muhammad, on the other hand, are not meant to shock or
offend. That they do is beside the point.
I sense some flaw in those thoughts. They are not meant to offend,
but they do? So if I don't mean to offend African Americans,
I can call them N*?
<snip/>
Let's face
it: True censorship is simply impossible on the Internet.
No information can be "hidden" forever, because it will always
be available on some other URL. We have to make editorial decisions
and should always consider our readers and our fellow editors,
when we make them. Pushing people of faith away from an article
about that faith is simply a bad idea.
IMO using JavaScript to deal with this is the best idea. It does not
push editors away and it does not compromise our neutrality. It gives
the readers and editors themselves the ability to control what they
see without us making editorial decisions.
OK, but why make it hard for them? We can do the JavaScript coding
and might as well make it easy for them to gain control.
--
Raphael
