As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted. In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular, Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights, but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions.
Sure if you tend towards the pro censorship position.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted. In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular, Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights, but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace.
WikiProject Catholicism appears to get by.
I'm not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
You admit it is a concession then? Surely we are thus forced to reject your position since we are making a concession to pro-censorship groups and wikipedia is not censored.
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
I've yet to see anyone seriously address to issue of how to decide which images to hide and which not to. Until that issue is settled, I can't see how we can use the show/hide method.
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
I've yet to see anyone seriously address to issue of how to decide which images to hide and which not to.
If there is an internet petition with 200.000 signatures against an image, I'd say, that it is a good candidate, don't you think?
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
If there is an internet petition with 200.000 signatures against an image, I'd say, that it is a good candidate, don't you think?
Ok, so that gives us a lower bound for where the line should be drawn. We need a little more than that.
Shouldn't we start with the first step? We can always stop, when we think it's enough.
On 21/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
If there is an internet petition with 200.000 signatures against an image, I'd say, that it is a good candidate, don't you think?
Ok, so that gives us a lower bound for where the line should be drawn. We need a little more than that.
Shouldn't we start with the first step? We can always stop, when we think it's enough.
I don't think so, no. I think we need to have at least a general idea of where to draw the line before we start, or chaos will ensue.
On 21/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If there is an internet petition with 200.000 signatures against an image, I'd say, that it is a good candidate, don't you think?
Ok, so that gives us a lower bound for where the line should be drawn. We need a little more than that.
No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do for *every other editorial decision*...
No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do for *every other editorial decision*...
We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but there is usually a policy to apply.
If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about 3 hours...
On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do for *every other editorial decision*...
We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but there is usually a policy to apply.
But we don't have a policy for everything. We can't have a policy for everything - we simply cannot reduce every editorial decision to a flowchart and a statute book.
We make our own case-specific decisions all the time, on a thousand different issues of content and layout and presentation, and there is nothing that will kill the encyclopedia if our editors start making a thousand and one sometimes.
I cannot think of a single time I've consulted a policy to decide how best to incorporate an image into an article, or whether I should; if it's then disputed, I talk to other editors and we work something out. All show/hide would become is another tool for incorporating an image to the best extent, another factor in the subtle editorial decision on how to construct the page.
It becomes a lot less threatening if we stop thinking of it as a once-off concession and consider it as an unusual special case, like - oh, I don't know, having text in columns. It'd look silly most of the time, but sometimes we find that functionality improves the article.
If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about 3 hours...
Let them, I say. Our editorial quality will not be ruined if articles are structured in such a way that you have to click a button to see a photograph of a clitoris on [[Clitoris]] - nor will it be ruined if you have to click a button to see a photograph of a jackdaw on [[Corvus monedula]], not that I can see anyone caring about that. (Made to look a little sillier, mind you, but then we do plenty of that already!)
Common sense will stop it being applied grossly inappropriately; I can trust our community on that.
Our fundamental guiding principle is that people can reach consensus on everything, can work together and produce a result, if we give them the encouragement to do so and a framework in which that's expected. Saying we don't trust people to reach consensus on applying a tool if we let them start using it... well, if we used that logic every time we allowed people to do things, we'd never have had a wiki. And if it all goes horribly wrong, well, we can get together and decide not to use it in future.
But say we do have such a tag on [[Clitoris]]. Why would this be inherently a bad thing? There are no shortage of perfectly legitimate reasons a sizable subset of readers (& editors) would not want an immediately visible image on the article, which have nothing to do with prurience or a desire for censorship!
Indeed, the reasons are a lot more justifiable to the general population than the Muhammad ones. The phrases "public computer rooms" and "embarrassment" should explain a lot of them...
If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about 3 hours...
Let them, I say. Our editorial quality will not be ruined if articles are structured in such a way that you have to click a button to see a photograph of a clitoris on [[Clitoris]] - nor will it be ruined if you have to click a button to see a photograph of a jackdaw on [[Corvus monedula]], not that I can see anyone caring about that. (Made to look a little sillier, mind you, but then we do plenty of that already!)
You've completely missed my point. I didn't say "How long will it take for someone to add show/hide tags to [[Clitoris]]?" I said "How long will it take for the *edit war* to start on [[Clitoris]]?". I'm not making a judgement on whether or not the images should be hidden, I'm pointing out that without a policy, we're going to get edit wars, and those *are* inherently bad.
In 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You've completely missed my point. I didn't say "How long will it take for someone to add show/hide tags to [[Clitoris]]?" I said "How long will it take for the *edit war* to start on [[Clitoris]]?". I'm not making a judgement on whether or not the images should be hidden, I'm pointing out that without a policy, we're going to get edit wars, and those *are* inherently bad.
Yes, but we get edit wars over *everything*. There'll be an edit war, we'll reach a compromise, it's over and done with.
To quote myself (because I haven't thought of a better way of putting it yet):
"Common sense will stop it being applied grossly inappropriately; I can trust our community on that. Our fundamental guiding principle is that people can reach consensus on everything [...] Saying we don't trust people to reach consensus on applying a tool if we let them start using it... well, if we used that logic every time we allowed people to do things, we'd never have had a wiki."
Edit wars are undesirable, but they are also a normal cost of doing business with our model. Something causing edit wars is... well, to be expected if discouraged.
We have edit wars in the genitalia articles all the time, and they start when someone puts in a sufficiently graphic image. Often these are found to have originated from porn sites. As a rule the articles get brought back to using less provocative images, and things quiet down. The theory that the illustrations have to include women suggestively fingering their vulvae may be supported by "not censored", but except for the gallery of pornography which is "female masturbation", the notion that less sexualized images are more encyclopedic generally prevails.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about 3 hours...
Let them, I say. Our editorial quality will not be ruined if articles are structured in such a way that you have to click a button to see a photograph of a clitoris on [[Clitoris]] - nor will it be ruined if you have to click a button to see a photograph of a jackdaw on [[Corvus monedula]], not that I can see anyone caring about that. (Made to look a little sillier, mind you, but then we do plenty of that already!)
You've completely missed my point. I didn't say "How long will it take for someone to add show/hide tags to [[Clitoris]]?" I said "How long will it take for the *edit war* to start on [[Clitoris]]?". I'm not making a judgement on whether or not the images should be hidden, I'm pointing out that without a policy, we're going to get edit wars, and those *are* inherently bad.
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 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do for *every other editorial decision*...
We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but there is usually a policy to apply.
But say we do have such a tag on [[Clitoris]]. Why would this be inherently a bad thing? There are no shortage of perfectly legitimate reasons a sizable subset of readers (& editors) would not want an immediately visible image on the article, which have nothing to do with prurience or a desire for censorship!
Indeed, the reasons are a lot more justifiable to the general population than the Muhammad ones. The phrases "public computer rooms" and "embarrassment" should explain a lot of them...
Could you name a few legitimate reasons why we shouldn't have an immediately viewable image of a clitoris in our [[Clitoris]] article? Surely those who don't wish to be embarrassed by what they are looking at on a public computer and would feel embarrassed by looking at an image of a clitoris, wouldn't start reading an article entitled "Clitoris" on a public computer?
In the article [[hand]] there is a picture of a hand. In the article [[face]] there is a picture of a face. In fact, in every article we have relating to a body part, there is a picture of that body part. Images confer information that text cannot and are very useful to explaining a subject. So, since we are showing an image of a body part in the context of education and information, what legitimate reason is there to break this policy? We are not showing the image to be gratuitous or to shock or to entertain or to titillate. The only reason to object to images of sexual organs in our context is prudishness and a desire for censorship.
On 21/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
I've yet to see anyone seriously address to issue of how to decide which images to hide and which not to.
If there is an internet petition with 200.000 signatures against an image, I'd say, that it is a good candidate, don't you think?
Why would a petition containing X number of signatures sway us one way or another about our content? Religious lobby groups quickly put great numbers behind petitions and letter writing campaigns. That a group of 200 000 were convinced to sign a petition doesn't necessarily mean very much.
When Jerry Springer: The Opera offended some Catholics' sense of absolute control over of the concepts "God", "Jesus", "heaven", and "hell", a letter writing campaign was organised against the BBC. Most of the letters looked the same, so the fact that there were thousands of complaints means very little. The BBC aired the opera anyway, despite receiving more complaints than ever before (on any issue).
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
Because of network effects and alexandria. Read the Jyllands-Posten timeline.
On 22/02/2008, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
Because of network effects and alexandria.
We always knew there were risks with alexandria.
Read the Jyllands-Posten timeline.
Argumentum ad baculum?
It's clear that people are much, much more concerned about smoothing things over than they would be if wikimania were being held in atlanta. (At least, it became clear to me when one of my friends, who didn't know about alexandria, told me my arguments were totally uncharacteristic.)
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It could end up being a really good thing. Maybe wikipedians will actually effect some tiny steps forward in the incredibly troubled relationship between the middle east and the west. At the very least, a lot of people are going to know a lot more about internal egyptian politics than they once did.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:14 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
Because of network effects and alexandria.
We always knew there were risks with alexandria.
Read the Jyllands-Posten timeline.
Argumentum ad baculum?
-- geni
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 22/02/2008, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that people are much, much more concerned about smoothing things over than they would be if wikimania were being held in atlanta.
Didn't somebody once make a big song and dance of burning that place to the ground? Nowhere is safe.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It could end up being a really good thing. Maybe wikipedians will actually effect some tiny steps forward in the incredibly troubled relationship between the middle east and the west. At the very least, a lot of people are going to know a lot more about internal egyptian politics than they once did.
I don't know if I agree. Fear is not a good context for decision making.
On 21/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
We are not but you don't appear to be attempting to write the code required to get the web browsers to do what they want them to do.
On 22/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we so eager to bend over backwards for people who either cannot operate their web browers or refuse to do so?
We are not but you don't appear to be attempting to write the code required to get the web browsers to do what they want them to do.
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images. I don't think writing for those browsers would solve the problem, which as I suggested in my earlier comment is a matter of misconfigured liveware.
Sadly there is no easy way to code around multi-centennial liveware bugs.
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images.
Which is why you build a firefox extension to do just that. Set it up with a simple way to download and add list of images to block could be quite popular. If the various ad blocking extensions can work so can this.
On 22/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images.
Which is why you build a firefox extension to do just that. Set it up with a simple way to download and add list of images to block could be quite popular. If the various ad blocking extensions can work so can this.
There is no need to write a firefox extension. Firefox provides complete user control over image downloads out of the box.
On 22/02/2008, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to write a firefox extension. Firefox provides complete user control over image downloads out of the box.
Really? How would I block all images with the images with the text string "Catherine Eddowes" while not blocking "Wells next the sea". How would be able set things up so that firefox blocks images that authority X considers to be ah somewhat disturbing without blocking anything else?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images. I don't think writing for those browsers would solve the problem, which as I suggested in my earlier comment is a matter of misconfigured liveware.
This seems like a fine idea. How about we put a link to a help page under controversial images explaining how to turn image rendering off for the site?
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with. I don't want to add show/hide tags to images of Muhammad any more than I want to ensure that nothing negative is said about scientology, or that [[Creationism]] is portrayed as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. I am not Muslim, and I am not a Scientologist, and I am not a Creationist.
I am a Wikipedian. Our values are openness, transparency, and neutrality. I do not want to remove images that are relevant because it upsets some people sensibilities. That is offensive to me, and I think offensive to the larger internet community. We shouldn't rush to placate a group of people that are peripheral to the project, while deeply offending our core editors, and our own values.
I do not think that the utter removal of the images is something anyone in this discussion (as opposed to discussions elsewhere) thinks is tenable. The only open issue is whether we can come up with a compromise solution that makes the images less provocative without damaging the truth of the articles.
But to address your specific comment, I don't feel compelled to privilege your taking offense at hiding the images any more than I feel compelled to privilege their taking offense at the presence of the images in any form. As I've said a couple of times along the way, the insistence on including the images in the main article and making sure they are visible isn't neutral; it's anti-Islamic, or at least against some very typical forms thereof. It's not that far off from insisting that it is appropriate to prefer blasphemous depictions of Jesus in his article.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:14 AM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images. I don't think writing for those browsers would solve the problem, which as I suggested in my earlier comment is a matter of misconfigured liveware.
This seems like a fine idea. How about we put a link to a help page under controversial images explaining how to turn image rendering off for the site?
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with. I don't want to add show/hide tags to images of Muhammad any more than I want to ensure that nothing negative is said about scientology, or that [[Creationism]] is portrayed as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. I am not Muslim, and I am not a Scientologist, and I am not a Creationist.
I am a Wikipedian. Our values are openness, transparency, and neutrality. I do not want to remove images that are relevant because it upsets some people sensibilities. That is offensive to me, and I think offensive to the larger internet community. We shouldn't rush to placate a group of people that are peripheral to the project, while deeply offending our core editors, and our own values.
Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
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 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think that the utter removal of the images is something anyone in this discussion (as opposed to discussions elsewhere) thinks is tenable. The only open issue is whether we can come up with a compromise solution that makes the images less provocative without damaging the truth of the articles.
If censoring ourself doesn't address the complaints, what's the point?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
If censoring ourself doesn't address the complaints, what's the point?
From what I saw in the discussion during the last weeks, the idea was
to do something that will cause disagreement among the petitioners whether this already was enough submission to the general concept of islamic law or not. Or something that will encourate them to push the line even further. I am "waiting" for a petition demanding to remove any remark that Aischa was far off any kind of age of consent at the time she lost her virginity.
Mathias
On 22/02/2008, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
If censoring ourself doesn't address the complaints, what's the point?
From what I saw in the discussion during the last weeks, the idea was to do something that will cause disagreement among the petitioners whether this already was enough submission to the general concept of islamic law or not. Or something that will encourate them to push the line even further.
Should we attempt to appease the fundamentalists, further demands are inevitable.
On 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
But to address your specific comment, I don't feel compelled to privilege your taking offense at hiding the images any more than I feel compelled to privilege their taking offense at the presence of the images in any form. As I've said a couple of times along the way, the insistence on including the images in the main article and making sure they are visible isn't neutral; it's anti-Islamic, or at least against some very typical forms thereof. It's not that far off from insisting that it is appropriate to prefer blasphemous depictions of Jesus in his article.
The refusal to compromise our policy for a particular belief is not anti-[that belief]. Any other biography article would contain an image if one were freely available. To suggest that those who wish to maintain this pattern is anti-Islamic is manipulative and provocative.
On 22/02/2008, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with.
Conversely, it is deeply offensive to me that we are pandering to people who feel "fuck 'em, free speech" is a valid standpoint to hold in a project founded on *neutrality* and *editorial consensus* - we are in danger of just placating the kneejerk political views of a subset of our editors, I guess.
[No, really, it is, this isn't just me pretending to make a point. I am not religious and I don't give a damn about the issue, but some of the contempt which has been shown for the 'outside' viewpoint is more infuriating to me than the petition... I may be a militant atheist, but I also value politeness and a willingness to know when it's not worth arguing the toss with someone who does feel strongly]
I don't want to add show/hide tags to images of Muhammad any more than I want to ensure that nothing negative is said about scientology, or that [[Creationism]] is portrayed as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. I am not Muslim, and I am not a Scientologist, and I am not a Creationist.
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; the others are major editorial decisions which would be fundamentally incompatible with a neutral and encyclopedic article...
We shouldn't rush to placate a group of people that are peripheral to the project, while deeply offending our core editors, and our own values.
Here's an interesting question: why *should* the personal viewpoints of our editors get privileged, in determining what constitutes neutrality, over the personal viewpoints of external readers who happen not to be involved with the project? I mean, it happens, and I tend to find it quite useful in keeping out crap, but I'm not sure how we reconcile it with NPOV on a more, aha, theological level.
(Would we be having this debate *at all* if a third of our editors were Muslim?)
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. A situation where neither side gets any of what it wants cannot accurately be described as a compromise.
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 - 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.
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...
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.
On 22/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures
That does not fulfil the demand for removal of the images from Wikipedia.
I don't believe I ever said my desire was to "fulfil the demand"; my primary concern here is the encyclopedia.
What we have done is limited the exposure of people to material they have found offensive. We have ensured that if someone wishes to read an article about the man they consider the Prophet - and I think we can reasonably assume plenty do - they can do so without us forcing them to also see what they consider to be blasphemy.
It's a reasonable step, and "it doesn't fulfil a particularly insistent set of demands" does not make it any less reasonable as an editorial decision.
- 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.
No, we haven't. There is no way this is "throwing away our principles" unless you deliberately set out to interpret it as such. I mean, ffs, what have we done? We've, er, restructured an article a little. How is this a collapse of all we hold dear?
(Please note: declaring "censorship" doesn't count as an explanation unless you explain *why* it is undeniably censorship. It should be obvious by now that people can seriously disagree on this issue without being frothing zealots, and I'm tired of it being stated as a fact...)
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.
Yes, because there will be Further Demands. Because these are Evil Foreign People, and all they want to do is Take Over Our World. I am not sure banking on the existence of "further demands" is anything but disturbing paranoia.
But if there are unreasonable demands, you know what? We can ignore them. Agreeing to one request doesn't legally mandate us to agree with all future ones, and pretending it does is just silly.
Andrew Gray schrieb:
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 - 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.
<snip/>
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
I don't believe we have to make a concession to censorship to show that we are thinking about what we are doing. Reasonable people may disagree. I have thought about my viewpoint at length. I think the general population sees our decision not to censor Wikipedia not as an indication that we haven't thought about the issue, but that we have, and that we have come to the right conclusion. This is reflected in general talk on the internet, and emails sent to otrs.
Calling us zealots and fundamentalists gets us no where. We might be able to reach a compromise, but it's not going to be conceding 100% to what the anonymous web petition wants. Maybe we could educate people in how to hide images themselves. Most modern browsers support this. You probably wouldn't have much opposition in a purely educational stance.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
I don't believe we have to make a concession to censorship to show that we are thinking about what we are doing. Reasonable people may disagree. I have thought about my viewpoint at length. I think the general population sees our decision not to censor Wikipedia not as an indication that we haven't thought about the issue, but that we have, and that we have come to the right conclusion. This is reflected in general talk on the internet, and emails sent to otrs.
Calling us zealots and fundamentalists gets us no where. We might be able to reach a compromise, but it's not going to be conceding 100% to what the anonymous web petition wants. Maybe we could educate people in how to hide images themselves. Most modern browsers support this. You probably wouldn't have much opposition in a purely educational stance.
I signed the petition too, and not anonymously. We should not offend needlessly. We should maintain high standards with respect to offensive material that conveys little information.
Fred Bauder
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
On 23/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Andrew Gray schrieb:
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 - 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.
<snip/>
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
-- Raphael
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Farrar schrieb:
On 23/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Andrew Gray schrieb:
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 - 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.
<snip/>
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I agree. I wrote my reply in order to point to the fact, that those "no censorship at all costs" proponents are actually imitating those "remove all Muhammad images" proponents in their zealousness and fundamentalism.
br
On 23/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
I agree. I wrote my reply in order to point to the fact, that those "no censorship at all costs" proponents are actually imitating those "remove all Muhammad images" proponents in their zealousness and fundamentalism.
And you attribute that position to - whom, precisely?
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with.
Conversely, it is deeply offensive to me that we are pandering to people who feel "fuck 'em, free speech" is a valid standpoint to hold in a project founded on *neutrality* and *editorial consensus* - we are in danger of just placating the kneejerk political views of a subset of our editors, I guess.
As far as I'm aware, we've had an image of Muhammad's face in our article for many years. A desire to maintain the status quo (which is based upon our NPOV and no censorship policy) and to stand by our policy is not "fuck 'em, free speech". If issues had been raised and we had introduced the image just to get under their skin, you may be right. Ultimately, if someone thinks they would be offended by an image of Muhammad's face, why would they take a look at an article about Muhammad on a non-Muslim website without being careful?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm aware, we've had an image of Muhammad's face in our article for many years. A desire to maintain the status quo (which is based upon our NPOV and no censorship policy) and to stand by our policy is not "fuck 'em, free speech". If issues had been raised and we had introduced the image just to get under their skin, you may be right. Ultimately, if someone thinks they would be offended by an image of Muhammad's face, why would they take a look at an article about Muhammad on a non-Muslim website without being careful?
Exactly. Let's say this is a neutral article, and it's about a religious figure. If that's the case we should present this religious figure like other religious figures. They have images. If we remove images from this article that is not neutral, because we would be treating it differently. What possible reason would we have to remove images from this article and not others? It's against the religion of the people who care most about the subject to allow others to create images of this person? It offends people who care a lot about the subject? Or, the Hadiths say to remove it. I think most people would agree we are not doing it because the Hadiths say so, but rather because people don't like it.
What possible rules can we take away from that? 1) We accept that if someone asks for something to be done based on their religion we do it, 2) We remove things when it offends people who care about the subject a lot, 3) We follow all primary and apocryphal religious texts. These seem silly. This is not an anti-Muslim view, it's a neutral one. There are a lot of things that people disagree with, some for religious reasons. I'd feel equally as strongly if a group of Jewish people complained about [[Tetragrammaton]].
On 22/02/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Conversely, it is deeply offensive to me that we are pandering to people who feel "fuck 'em, free speech" is a valid standpoint to hold in a project founded on *neutrality* and *editorial consensus* - we are in danger of just placating the kneejerk political views of a subset of our editors, I guess.
As far as I'm aware, we've had an image of Muhammad's face in our article for many years. A desire to maintain the status quo (which is based upon our NPOV and no censorship policy) and to stand by our policy is not "fuck 'em, free speech".
Yet we do have people arguing for the retention of the image on exactly those grounds (well, not in those words) *as well* as the more reasonable ones. Likewise, we have people arguing for the removal on sane editorial grounds, *as well* as the ones yelling blasphemy.
On both sides, there are reasonable people and unreasonable people.
My point is that if we call one position pandering to the extremists on that side, it's just as logical to call the other position pandering to the opposite set of extremists...
...in other words, *neither* position is "pandering". There are rational reasons to do either. The fact that there are also unreasonable demands to do either doesn't make picking one of them 'giving in'.
[As to the status quo being NPOV... I think this is a fallacious assumption to make on a binary issue, but that's another post. What we're seeing here is quite possibly an anomalous case where our normal approach to NPOV, which is basically to smooth things out, can't apply...]
Let's be precise about this. The article sat around for several years with nothing more than a (now-deleted) image of a particular mosque associated with Muhammad. Then it picked up one of the calligraphy roundels and a Persian miniature of the Miraj, both at the end of the article. That latter image, which uses one of the Islamic conventions for "depicting" Muhammad, has stayed with the article until the big battle started, except for a brief period in May 2006 when it was accidentally deleted as part of a reversion. It was restored within a few weeks as part of another reversion.
The trouble began on August 21, 2006, when Hungry Hun, after a few dozen edits, dropped a new image on the page that depicted Muhammad outside of convention. This immediately set off an edit war and heated discussion-- not because Muslims rose up and took offense, but because a lot of non-Muslims were concerned about the inclusion. From that point on there was a constant battle, with more offensive images added (including a western engraving at one point) and the images moved towards the top of the article.
I quit looking at history after June 2007 because by that time the battle was well-established. However, it's quite clear from looking at the early stages that wasn't a case of "we had all the images and the iconoclasts swooped in". We had one image which was not offensive and which stayed unchallenged indefinitely, and then someone stuck in one which was immediately recognized as problematic. It rapidly changed into a WP:POINTed battle over making the offensive image stick and over adding more of the same.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with.
Conversely, it is deeply offensive to me that we are pandering to people who feel "fuck 'em, free speech" is a valid standpoint to hold in a project founded on *neutrality* and *editorial consensus* - we are in danger of just placating the kneejerk political views of a subset of our editors, I guess.
As far as I'm aware, we've had an image of Muhammad's face in our article for many years. A desire to maintain the status quo (which is based upon our NPOV and no censorship policy) and to stand by our policy is not "fuck 'em, free speech". If issues had been raised and we had introduced the image just to get under their skin, you may be right. Ultimately, if someone thinks they would be offended by an image of Muhammad's face, why would they take a look at an article about Muhammad on a non-Muslim website without being careful?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
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 22/02/2008, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
There may be rare web browsers that cannot be told whether or not to download inline images. I don't think writing for those browsers would solve the problem, which as I suggested in my earlier comment is a matter of misconfigured liveware.
This seems like a fine idea. How about we put a link to a help page under controversial images explaining how to turn image rendering off for the site?
I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree with. I don't want to add show/hide tags to images of Muhammad any more than I want to ensure that nothing negative is said about scientology, or that [[Creationism]] is portrayed as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. I am not Muslim, and I am not a Scientologist, and I am not a Creationist.
I am a Wikipedian. Our values are openness, transparency, and neutrality. I do not want to remove images that are relevant because it upsets some people sensibilities. That is offensive to me, and I think offensive to the larger internet community. We shouldn't rush to placate a group of people that are peripheral to the project, while deeply offending our core editors, and our own values.
Judson, thank you for expressing so eloquently a view that many of us share. I am not a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. I do not want these religious beliefs--or any other--to determine what I can and cannot see. Religious absolutism has been the norm for thousands of years. We are some of the first generations to have any freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of thought. Why would we voluntarily give this up and allow religion to claim absolute correctness? If this were the other way round, one would be delusional to think that religion would give non-members any leeway.
I'm not trying to use "us and them" language and don't want to promote that mentality. What I am trying to say is that those who wish to believe a certain thing may do so, but can't expect the rest of us to follow suit.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:51 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted. In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular, Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights, but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
I had previously believed if a technical solution existed that allowed us to create a hatnote that said "To hide the images in the article which may be offensive to some Muslims, click [[here]]" that hid the images, one could round up a cabal and force it through.
The community response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_%28no_... convinced me it might simply be unpossible - but the AfD was closed to early to allow much discussion.
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a depictions" page have been discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best "suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as Wikipedians.
But uh - feel free to suggest it.
Cheers WilyD
Then surely there must be hundred of thousands of objections to the inaccurate (and overwrought) characterization of the "show" as "censorship". It simply is no such thing.
And your use of the phrase "collective morality" is telling, in exactly the wrong way. We're supposed to be neutral; we aren't supposed to *have* a morality in that sense. Right now, anyone can see that we aren't neutral about depictions of Muhammad.
I've said about what was worth saying in this. Of course, the "show" version is a concession. But what it comes down to at the moment is that making a moral statement about those illustrations is worth fighting over the issue forever. My personal view is that the article shouldn't be caught between the aniconic fundamentalists and the image inclusion fundamentalists.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a depictions" page have been discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best "suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as Wikipedians.
Err, not really - it's well known that we have a collective morality - for instance, presenting information neutrally is part of our collective morality.
Beyond that, it's as silly to characterise those arguing in favour of some level of image inclusion by the opinions of their most extreme members as those arguing against by their most extreme members. The realistic, moderate position focused on encyclopaedic value probably doesn't favour the exact arrangement of images used current, nor does it favour their complete supression - for the most part, I agree with User:Itaqallah's arguments, although I disagree with him about the importance of non-Muslim representation and Muhammad's importance and influence in the west.
But, in the community's collective will, it seems to believe very strongly that *uncensored* is a moral we simply can't violate - I prod'd people to keep the AfD on the "image-free fork" open longer to allow more discussion, but ... in the end, it was pretty pointless - perhaps the most overwhelming consensus I've seen anyware in this place.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Then surely there must be hundred of thousands of objections to the inaccurate (and overwrought) characterization of the "show" as "censorship". It simply is no such thing.
And your use of the phrase "collective morality" is telling, in exactly the wrong way. We're supposed to be neutral; we aren't supposed to *have* a morality in that sense. Right now, anyone can see that we aren't neutral about depictions of Muhammad.
I've said about what was worth saying in this. Of course, the "show" version is a concession. But what it comes down to at the moment is that making a moral statement about those illustrations is worth fighting over the issue forever. My personal view is that the article shouldn't be caught between the aniconic fundamentalists and the image inclusion fundamentalists.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a depictions" page have been discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best "suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as Wikipedians.
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 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted. In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular, Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights, but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
You present these two principles as equal: no pictures and not censored. There is a great difference between them and their moral value. Wikipedia's sense of no censorship is limited to our project. We have no belief that others (non-Wikipedians) should comply with this rule outside Wikipedia or that they will be punished (or are immoral) for not behaving like us.
The other principle is that no one--non-Muslims included--can see the face of Muhammed. It is ridiculous absolutism to suggest that people who aren't members of your group should comply with your rules (and should be punished for breaking those rules). I am not a Muslim and I have no moral, ethical or religious motivation to comply with a rule that I see as wrong and arrogant.
The big problem is that the discussion on the list is happening separately from the discussion on the wiki. It's become two different communities with two different dynamics. List regulars need to start arguing their points more on-wiki and less on-list, basically, if anything's going to happen.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted. In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular, Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights, but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
You present these two principles as equal: no pictures and not censored. There is a great difference between them and their moral value. Wikipedia's sense of no censorship is limited to our project. We have no belief that others (non-Wikipedians) should comply with this rule outside Wikipedia or that they will be punished (or are immoral) for not behaving like us.
The other principle is that no one--non-Muslims included--can see the face of Muhammed. It is ridiculous absolutism to suggest that people who aren't members of your group should comply with your rules (and should be punished for breaking those rules). I am not a Muslim and I have no moral, ethical or religious motivation to comply with a rule that I see as wrong and arrogant.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think Wikipedia's "not censored" policy is limited to our project; I think it represents the dominance of those who view Wikipedia as a conduit for disseminating material potentially subject to censorship. By your own words you are setting Wikipedia against the "arrogance" of (some forms of) Islam, so once again I have to say, "I see no neutrality here."
I would also point out that the principle isn't really "not censored". It seems to me that we should be seeking a solution which retains the images but isn't so "in your face" about their presence. Actual censorship doesn't seem to be on the table.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
You present these two principles as equal: no pictures and not censored. There is a great difference between them and their moral value. Wikipedia's sense of no censorship is limited to our project. We have no belief that others (non-Wikipedians) should comply with this rule outside Wikipedia or that they will be punished (or are immoral) for not behaving like us.
The other principle is that no one--non-Muslims included--can see the face of Muhammed. It is ridiculous absolutism to suggest that people who aren't members of your group should comply with your rules (and should be punished for breaking those rules). I am not a Muslim and I have no moral, ethical or religious motivation to comply with a rule that I see as wrong and arrogant.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
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 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think Wikipedia's "not censored" policy is limited to our project; I think it represents the dominance of those who view Wikipedia as a conduit for disseminating material potentially subject to censorship.
Assume bad faith! That'll definitely help in convincing people who don't already agree with you.
- d.
It's hardly bad faith when I can find people saying it outright. But at any rate, I don't think it's a question of bad faith in that sense, because I don't think that in general they appreciate how that attitude represents a bias.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think Wikipedia's "not censored" policy is limited to our project; I think it represents the dominance of those who view Wikipedia as a conduit for disseminating material potentially subject to censorship.
Assume bad faith! That'll definitely help in convincing people who don't already agree with you.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l