This was sent directly to me and not to the list, but I'm replying on-list.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM, AB diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 14/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I'd rather we be considered insensitive than unecyclopedic, considering that we are an encyclopedia.
No, WP is not an encyclopaedia. No encyclopaedia I know of sends violent thugs to threaten to turn its critics black and blue. WP does. WP is a mob.
Please provide a citation for this claim. I am not aware of any such incident.
And as to be expected from a mob that sends violent thugs after people, you don't care if your actions incite others to violence. Really, if one of the more violent of the Muslims made good on their threats, what would you tell the families of the people who got killed? That the death of their loved ones paid for an 'encyclopaedic' article, and they should be proud?
I would tell them I'm sorry that their loved ones were killed at the hands of fanatics. If a group chooses to get offended at an encyclopedia and chooses to express its anger by killing, something is very, very wrong with that group's psyche. I would not hold myself responsible for their fanaticism.
If that is seriously what you would say, then you have no ethics, no basic sense of human decency. If it's not, open your eyes to the world - there are extremist Muslims in the world, so something like that could actually happen.
So what you are suggesting is that we listen to every demand made by an extremist group, because otherwise Something Bad will happen? Giving in is not the answer, my friend.
On 14/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
This was sent directly to me and not to the list, but I'm replying on-list.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM, AB diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't feed Armed Blowfish on the list.
- d.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
This was sent directly to me and not to the list, but I'm replying on-list.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM, AB diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't feed Armed Blowfish on the list.
Sorry, didn't know that he was a known troll. Added to my block list.
Firstly I would advise against calling those who oppose the Muhammad pictures "extremists" or "fanatics". Although some of those users might have violent tendencies, protesting against what you feel is an insult to your faith is hardly extremist behaviour.If it were so you would have to call a large number of Christian leaders fanatics for opposing the "Da Vinci Code". Infact by past standards the response of the Muslim groups to this issue has been exceedinly passive, not even a fatwa has been issued yet.
That being said, to compromise on principles due to pressure from certain groups is hardly desirable. However experience shows that Muslims are a very difficult group to negotiate with. The fact that the concerned Wikipedia article has 3 talk pages to explain the issue to offended Muslims is proof of this. This tendency (of not budging from their fundamentalist religious views) among those of the Islamic faith is described by some as "fanaticism" and by others as "admirable devotion", and it is this trait which perhaps sets Islam apart from other major religions.
The point I a trying to make is that you cannot and will not succeed in convincing Muslims to accept that image, however hard you try. In fact you would have much more chance of convincing non-Muslims of why the image had to be taken down. Wikipedia seems tobe trying to make a point. One wonders what it is?
Wikipedia seems tobe trying to make a point. One wonders what it is?
The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have encyclopaedic value (that point has been disputed by some on the grounds that there is no reason to believe the person in the image bears any resemblance to Muhammad, and that's a point worth discussing, that it's against the customs of a particular people is not worth any discussion).
Yes, we are making a point. We have some basic principles, and freedom from censorship is one of them. Just as we would never compromise with a free content license, so we would not here. The point we are making is that these are our values on the project. Anyone who wants to make an image-free fork can do so. That's part of our free license--they are complementary.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia seems tobe trying to make a point. One wonders what it is?
The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have encyclopaedic value (that point has been disputed by some on the grounds that there is no reason to believe the person in the image bears any resemblance to Muhammad, and that's a point worth discussing, that it's against the customs of a particular people is not worth any discussion).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have encyclopaedic value
Encyclopaedic just means that they should go in the encyclopaedia somewhere; but not necessarily in the Mohammad article. The censorship policy just says that we don't remove things from the entire wikipedia, not that we don't move it from any particular article.
At present, the wikipedia is far from neutral here; for example, the Muhammad in Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single veiled image in 18 pages, whereas the wikipedia has 4, and most of them are unveiled. I don't think you can find many articles on Muhammad with lots of images in; or nobody has so far.
Since NPOV policy says that the wikipedia is supposed to avoid overemphasis, it can be argued that compared to the EB we significantly overemphasise these images, particularly the unveiled ones.
Towing the line with the EB would help get a lot of more moderate Moslems off the back of the wikipedia, but if the wikipedia is 'taking a stand'- in either direction away from the EB, then we're really making a political statement. But what policy is there that says that the wikipedia should make political statements?
On 15/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have encyclopaedic value
Encyclopaedic just means that they should go in the encyclopaedia somewhere; but not necessarily in the Mohammad article. The censorship policy just says that we don't remove things from the entire wikipedia, not that we don't move it from any particular article.
Images of Muhammad make sense in the article on Muhammad. I'm not sure if moving them to another article would appease the people complaining, anyway.
At present, the wikipedia is far from neutral here; for example, the Muhammad in Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single veiled image in 18 pages, whereas the wikipedia has 4, and most of them are unveiled. I don't think you can find many articles on Muhammad with lots of images in; or nobody has so far.
"Neutral" does not mean "what everybody else does", so your point is completely meaningless.
On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
At present, the wikipedia is far from neutral here; for example, the Muhammad in Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single veiled image in 18 pages, whereas the wikipedia has 4, and most of them are unveiled. I don't think you can find many articles on Muhammad with lots of images in; or nobody has so far.
"Neutral" does not mean "what everybody else does",
Actually yes, it really does. The policy states:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
So in order to keep these images in the article we need to show that their presence represents ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS without bias. You can bias an article very well adding by adding more of anything than other sources show; as you well know, and that seems to be what is happening here.
"Neutral" does not mean "what everybody else does",
Actually yes, it really does. The policy states:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
So in order to keep these images in the article we need to show that their presence represents ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS without bias. You can bias an article very well adding by adding more of anything than other sources show; as you well know, and that seems to be what is happening here.
You're talking nonsense. The correct amount of each view to include depends on the inherent notability of the view, not on how much other sources talk about it (there is a correlation there, certainly, but it's far from a simple one).
This thread has probably surpassed the limit of its usefulness, wouldn't you say?
Nathan
On 16/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking nonsense. The correct amount of each view to include depends on the inherent notability of the view, not on how much other sources talk about it (there is a correlation there, certainly, but it's far from a simple one).
It's an intriguing idea that a view can have an 'inherent notability' as you put it, independent of how notable sources in the aggregate talk about it, but I would expect this would have difficulty squaring with the objectivist underpinnings of the wikipedia.
On 2/15/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking nonsense. The correct amount of each view to include depends on the inherent notability of the view, not on how much other sources talk about it (there is a correlation there, certainly, but it's far from a simple one).
I was just reading the logorrhea at the top of WP:N (which, with its initial nutshellism simplicity confounded by copious footnotes and circular auxiliary definitions which raise more questions than they answer, quite frankly verges on self-parody[1], but that's a separate issue).
Inherent? I don't see how a more *exherent* set of criteria could be chosen.
—C.W.
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.
Inherent? I don't see how a more *exherent* set of criteria could be chosen.
Well, you do have to distinguish notability from the various measures of notability we use.
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.
You need to put that somewhere more permanent than an email! It's brilliant.
On 16/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Inherent? I don't see how a more *exherent* set of criteria could be chosen.
Well, you do have to distinguish notability from the various measures of notability we use.
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.
You need to put that somewhere more permanent than an email! It's brilliant.
Why has this email appeared in the wrong thread? I'm pretty sure I did exactly the same thing I always do (I clicked the "reply" button)...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
[Charlotte the Webb wrote:]
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.
You need to put that somewhere more permanent than an email! It's brilliant.
I'll say. I was sorely tempted to paste it into WP:N's nutshell template just now, as a bold bit of IAR vandalism.
On 2/16/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Inherent? I don't see how a more *exherent* set of criteria could be
chosen.
Well, you do have to distinguish notability from the various measures of notability we use.
[[I know it when I see it|Potter Stewart for ArbCom]]?
[1] Significance shall be demonstrated through thine coverage, and the level of thine coverage shall be significant. Trivial thine coverage shalt not be, nor needeth it to be exclusive, provided that it is at least significant. Usenet postings from 1995 are right out. Once significance, being the required level of coverage, be established, then thou mayst in good faith lobbyeth in yonder AFD fracas for swift retention of thine presumedly notable topic, and thy deletionist foes, being time-wasting trolls in mine sight, shalt politely go fuck themselfs.
You need to put that somewhere more permanent than an email! It's brilliant.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
—C.W.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that we are a neutral encyclopaedia and those images have encyclopaedic value
Encyclopaedic just means that they should go in the encyclopaedia somewhere; but not necessarily in the Mohammad article. The censorship policy just says that we don't remove things from the entire wikipedia, not that we don't move it from any particular article.
At present, the wikipedia is far from neutral here; for example, the Muhammad in Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single veiled image in 18 pages, whereas the wikipedia has 4, and most of them are unveiled. I don't think you can find many articles on Muhammad with lots of images in; or nobody has so far.
Since NPOV policy says that the wikipedia is supposed to avoid overemphasis, it can be argued that compared to the EB we significantly overemphasise these images, particularly the unveiled ones.
Towing the line with the EB would help get a lot of more moderate Moslems off the back of the wikipedia, but if the wikipedia is 'taking a stand'- in either direction away from the EB, then we're really making a political statement. But what policy is there that says that the wikipedia should make political statements?
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So far as I know, EB makes no pretense of trying to be neutral - in all likely, we shouldn't be copying their lead. Their goals and our goals are broadly similar, but the nitty-gritty remains important.
Cheers WilyD