I accidentally sent with the wrong email address, see quoted text. The original message was canceled by myself.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00 thinboy00@gmail.com wrote:
Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)? Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or tables) won't load? On second thought, whether they should load in that case is debatable.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
Andrew Gray wrote:
The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get interestingly creative...
I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page. It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page. All images stay per default visible.
The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image, those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad can just click the link in the ambox and read our article with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
Unfortunately this solution needs some additional javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll need to copy my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload), you should be able to see my compromise at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
To implement this compromise, we should think about a more general approach, something like a Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
br
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
-- Sincerely, Thinboy00> > >> interestingly creative...
I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page. It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page. All images stay per default visible.
The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image, those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad can just click the link in the ambox and read our article with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
Unfortunately this solution needs some additional javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll need to copy my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload), you should be able to see my compromise at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
To implement this compromise, we should think about a more general approach, something like a Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
br
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
-- Sincerely, Thinboy00
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00 thinboy00@gmail.com wrote:
Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)? Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or tables) won't load? On second thought, whether they should load in that case is debatable.
Alex G schrieb:
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also
add a
Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
Yes, it would need a sitewide installation in monobook.js
Per default and without javascript all tables are expanded and the images are visible.
From what I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images#new_compromise
I don't see much chance for it to get implemented though.
There are multiple objections:
1. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles I'm not sure, whether it is a disclaimer. And the opposition is chary on that, so I have to guess. Is it a) they don't want a permanent article message box. There are many articles with {{POV}} or {{disputed}} message boxes, some of them stay for years. b) they object the text in the message box. If anything can be regarded as a disclaimer, it is the part "Even though Wikipedia is not censored" as it indeed disclaims any censorship is involved at Wikipedia. OTOH the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored" has been written on the Muhammad talk pages probably hundreds of times, so I wonder why anyone would object that phrase to be in a message box on the article. Anyway, the text can be changed.
2. They are fearing a slippery slope. There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists, Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any worse, when there is a possibility to make [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
br
- They are fearing a slippery slope. There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists, Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any worse, when there is a possibility to make [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
br
Raphael
Well, this is a lost cause. However, I continue to maintain that showing an image of a person there is no authentic image of and which tens of millions of people find offensive is a mistake we could avoid.
Fred
On 27/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
- They are fearing a slippery slope. There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists, Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any worse, when there is a possibility to make [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
We can revert removals and blunt force edit waring will get them nowhere. Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though would make things harder.
On 29/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though would make things harder.
What things are these?
It seems to me that:
a) the wikipedia is out of line with almost every other encyclopedia, book, newspaper, and even references in the article, on Muhammad
b) the current position clearly isn't consensus (both within and outside the wikipedia)
c) the situation is if anything getting worse
--
geni
On 29/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though would make things harder.
What things are these?
It seems to me that:
a) the wikipedia is out of line with almost every other encyclopedia, book, newspaper, and even references in the article, on Muhammad
I've seen encyclopedias refer to islam as Muhammadanism.
b) the current position clearly isn't consensus (both within and outside the wikipedia)
Close to consensus as you are going to get
On 29/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Close to consensus as you are going to get
The consensus policy says:
"When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon."
This doesn't seem to be a neutral point of view. The whole point of consensus is to agree that something is neutral. It's *extremely* unclear that we have a neutral point of view in this article.
And if we don't have a neutral point of view then NOTCENSORED goes completely out the window. We censor non neutral points of view all the time.
-- 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
geni schrieb:
On 27/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
- They are fearing a slippery slope. There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists, Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any worse, when there is a possibility to make [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
We can revert removals and blunt force edit waring will get them nowhere. Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though would make things harder.
But are they still "forwarding their campaign", when they change their target from "remove those images" to "give us a possibility to hide them easily"? Besides, why would it be harder to revert the addition of a "collapse image message box" than reverting image removals?