On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:40:09 +0100, "Mathias Schindler" mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
That would be perfectly consistent with the usual effects of such a (self-)censorship tool. On the other hand, since naming a teddy bear Muhammad can bring you into trouble, looking at one with that name is already dangerously close. Thanks to the power of ASCII art, switching to links/lynx text based browsers won't work either.
Which brings up the question of why it seems to be fine to name people after Muhammad but not teddy bears. But trying to apply logic of any sort to religion is futile.
I've been going through the Koran on this issue. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in this area could inform me but it's my understanding that the image ban pertains to Allah, and the only ban I can see on Muhammad is on people "worshipping" images.
Chapter 42, verse 11: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."
Chapter 21, verses 52-54: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
In a wider context it includes all images, not just Muhammad. It's down to defining what exactly is "worshipping" when placed in an encyclopaedia.
There is also the issue of Persian art where Muhammad is depicted. Apparently the Shia, as opposed to Sunni, are less strict on their interpretation on where the image can be shown.
On 06/02/2008, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:40:09 +0100, "Mathias Schindler" mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
That would be perfectly consistent with the usual effects of such a (self-)censorship tool. On the other hand, since naming a teddy bear Muhammad can bring you into trouble, looking at one with that name is already dangerously close. Thanks to the power of ASCII art, switching to links/lynx text based browsers won't work either.
Which brings up the question of why it seems to be fine to name people after Muhammad but not teddy bears. But trying to apply logic of any sort to religion is futile.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Meg
Meg Ireland wrote:
I've been going through the Koran on this issue. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in this area could inform me but it's my understanding that the image ban pertains to Allah, and the only ban I can see on Muhammad is on people "worshipping" images.
Chapter 42, verse 11: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."
Chapter 21, verses 52-54: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
In a wider context it includes all images, not just Muhammad. It's down to defining what exactly is "worshipping" when placed in an encyclopaedia.
There is also the issue of Persian art where Muhammad is depicted. Apparently the Shia, as opposed to Sunni, are less strict on their interpretation on where the image can be shown.
It's not in the Koran, it's in the Hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
Islam, like all the major religions, is a mixture of holy books and established traditions. The petitioners seem to be almost entirely unaware of the history of their traditions. Some of them claim that the image in question couldn't possibly be of muslim origin, because no muslim would create such an image.
But that's not my problem, it's not my job to tell them how to live their lives, or how to interpret their holy books. Many Christians are unaware of the history of their tradition to completely disregard Old Testament law -- a tradition begun by Paul some time after the death of Jesus in order to encourage non-Jews to join. That's not my problem either.
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
-- Tim Starling
Tim, the Hadith refers to banning all images of humans and animals, not just Muhammad.
On 06/02/2008, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's not in the Koran, it's in the Hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
Islam, like all the major religions, is a mixture of holy books and established traditions. The petitioners seem to be almost entirely unaware of the history of their traditions. Some of them claim that the image in question couldn't possibly be of muslim origin, because no muslim would create such an image.
-- Tim Starling
Meg
Meg Ireland wrote:
On 06/02/2008, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's not in the Koran, it's in the Hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
Islam, like all the major religions, is a mixture of holy books and established traditions. The petitioners seem to be almost entirely unaware of the history of their traditions. Some of them claim that the image in question couldn't possibly be of muslim origin, because no muslim would create such an image.
-- Tim Starling
Tim, the Hadith refers to banning all images of humans and animals, not just Muhammad.
And the Bible refers to banning the eating of shellfish. What's your point?
-- Tim Starling
The Bible doesn't call for shellfish images to be banned though. My point Tim is that Hidath image ban is not specific to one individual. If the reason behind the removal is the Hidath, it opens the possibility for other people to petition removing other images on Hidath grounds.
On 06/02/2008, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
And the Bible refers to banning the eating of shellfish. What's your point?
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Meg
Meg Ireland wrote:
On 06/02/2008, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
And the Bible refers to banning the eating of shellfish. What's your point?
The Bible doesn't call for shellfish images to be banned though. My point Tim is that Hidath image ban is not specific to one individual. If the reason behind the removal is the Hidath, it opens the possibility for other people to petition removing other images on Hidath grounds.
The reason behind the proposed removal, as I said in my first post, is what offends people here and now. It's not about history or holy texts, it's about sentiment. A proposal to ban all depictions of people and animals would be laughed at by both sides.
-- Tim Starling
On Feb 6, 2008 5:53 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
. A proposal to ban all depictions of people and animals would be laughed at by both sides. -- Tim Starling
A representative sample of 100 taliban supports the proposal and feels offended by the laughter.
On Feb 5, 2008 11:02 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Meg Ireland wrote:
I've been going through the Koran on this issue. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in this area could inform me but it's my understanding that the image ban pertains to Allah, and the only ban I can see on Muhammad is on people "worshipping" images.
Chapter 42, verse 11: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."
Chapter 21, verses 52-54: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
In a wider context it includes all images, not just Muhammad. It's down to defining what exactly is "worshipping" when placed in an encyclopaedia.
There is also the issue of Persian art where Muhammad is depicted. Apparently the Shia, as opposed to Sunni, are less strict on their interpretation on where the image can be shown.
It's not in the Koran, it's in the Hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
Islam, like all the major religions, is a mixture of holy books and established traditions. The petitioners seem to be almost entirely unaware of the history of their traditions. Some of them claim that the image in question couldn't possibly be of muslim origin, because no muslim would create such an image.
But that's not my problem, it's not my job to tell them how to live their lives, or how to interpret their holy books. Many Christians are unaware of the history of their tradition to completely disregard Old Testament law -- a tradition begun by Paul some time after the death of Jesus in order to encourage non-Jews to join. That's not my problem either.
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
-- Tim Starling
Tim, feel free to read Talk:Muhammad & Talk:Muhammad/images to get an idea of what various protestors are asking for, but the more common points are: complete removal of any images that represent Muhammad, the article be written from an Islamic POV, non-Muslims be prohibited for editing, et cetera.
Cheers WilyD
On 06/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
... it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
Tim, feel free to read Talk:Muhammad & Talk:Muhammad/images to get an idea of what various protestors are asking for, but the more common points are: complete removal of any images that represent Muhammad, the article be written from an Islamic POV, non-Muslims be prohibited for editing, et cetera.
To put this in context, we routinely have demands on the talk pages (and by email) for American college fraternities for complete removal of any representation of their symbols, that the article be written from a sympathetic POV, that non-members be prohibited from editing, et cetera...
Of course, a lot of them are making *reasonable* requests rasther than demands for total editorial control. Tim did say "the moderate petitioners", not "the ones we can reject out of hand."
Wily D wrote:
Tim, feel free to read Talk:Muhammad & Talk:Muhammad/images to get an idea of what various protestors are asking for, but the more common points are: complete removal of any images that represent Muhammad, the article be written from an Islamic POV, non-Muslims be prohibited for editing, et cetera.
Such views may be ignored, but this does not relieve us from a general responsibility to seek solutions which are better for all sides than the current situation, if possible.
--Jimbo
On Feb 17, 2008 4:33 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Wily D wrote:
Tim, feel free to read Talk:Muhammad & Talk:Muhammad/images to get an idea of what various protestors are asking for, but the more common points are: complete removal of any images that represent Muhammad, the article be written from an Islamic POV, non-Muslims be prohibited for editing, et cetera.
Such views may be ignored, but this does not relieve us from a general responsibility to seek solutions which are better for all sides than the current situation, if possible.
--Jimbo
The problem becomes that Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images are overrun by those positions (as well as those who've come to lamblast Muslims as censors) to the point where the few editors concerned with writing a good encyclopaedic article are overwhelmed - there's been some discussion on how to handle it, but very little beyond "hope that this brew-ha-ha blows over" has real support. If it doesn, Talk:Muhammad/Workshop or something may necessarily become the place to discuss the article with sight of improving it (which is desperately needs).
WilyD
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
1. Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from Wikipedia completely.
2. Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they stuck open or closed in that case?
Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than pragmatically useful in my opinion.
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they stuck open or closed in that case?
Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than pragmatically useful in my opinion.
Peter
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'm not all that up on the javascript issue, however, if this is the case, a good workaround would be to :link the picture under the hat/hab. :linked pictures do not show, but as a link, you must click them to go to the pic page. So "If you can not "show" the picture above, click here..." or similar. Thoughts?
./scream
On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they stuck open or closed in that case?
Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than pragmatically useful in my opinion.
Peter
I'm not all that up on the javascript issue, however, if this is the case, a good workaround would be to :link the picture under the hat/hab. :linked pictures do not show, but as a link, you must click them to go to the pic page. So "If you can not "show" the picture above, click here..." or similar. Thoughts?
./scream
That is an elegant fallback for non-javascript users. Suits me.
Peter
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they stuck open or closed in that case?
Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than pragmatically useful in my opinion.
Peter
I'm not all that up on the javascript issue, however, if this is the case, a good workaround would be to :link the picture under the hat/hab. :linked pictures do not show, but as a link, you must click them to go to the pic page. So "If you can not "show" the picture above, click here..." or similar. Thoughts?
./scream
That is an elegant fallback for non-javascript users. Suits me.
Peter
Fantastic idea! Why did nobody think of this before :)
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
--- Ian A Holton http://www.ianholton.net
Ian A Holton wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
./scream
If one does not have Javascript enabled do those blocks work? Are they stuck open or closed in that case?
Just thinking about accessibility, the idea is fine with me as a useful compromise which is in no way censoring the picture, just requiring a distinct action to want to see it. Equating censorship with not immediately seeing the pictures would be more idealistic than pragmatically useful in my opinion.
Peter
I'm not all that up on the javascript issue, however, if this is the case, a good workaround would be to :link the picture under the hat/hab. :linked pictures do not show, but as a link, you must click them to go to the pic page. So "If you can not "show" the picture above, click here..." or similar. Thoughts?
./scream
That is an elegant fallback for non-javascript users. Suits me.
Peter
Fantastic idea! Why did nobody think of this before :)
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Ian A Holton http://www.ianholton.net
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 want to edit the article directly, for obvious reasons. If anyone wants to do that, boldly, I think that it would stick.
./scream
Screamer schrieb:
I don't want to edit the article directly, for obvious reasons. If anyone wants to do that, boldly, I think that it would stick.
I'd love to, but [[Muhammad]] is currently protected. The preview looks nice, but the [Save page] button won't work. :-)
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
"We cannot do everything perfectly" does not always lead to "we should never do anything".
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
"We cannot do everything perfectly" does not always lead to "we should never do anything".
Exactly. There needs to be editorial discretion here.
./scream
On 18/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
"We cannot do everything perfectly" does not always lead to "we should never do anything".
There are pretty clear ideas about the first set of images which are more than trivially disputed. Editors can make neutral compromises instead of inserting their POV in under the guise of non-censorship as a start at least.
Peter
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
"We cannot do everything perfectly" does not always lead to "we should never do anything".
There are pretty clear ideas about the first set of images which are more than trivially disputed. Editors can make neutral compromises instead of inserting their POV in under the guise of non-censorship as a start at least.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Totally agree here. I don't even think censorship is the issue, as censoring would require making the photo unavailable.
./scream
On 17/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Totally agree here. I don't even think censorship is the issue, as censoring would require making the photo unavailable.
I also don't think that moving material into different articles is inherently censorship; otherwise we would be technically censoring almost every time we move material around to form sub articles, but it's still available.
I believe we cannot in any conscience censor the *wikipedia* as a *whole*, but moving stuff around to articles where it is self-evident what is in them (a principle of least surprise) is a different issue. I do also feel *very* strongly indeed that removing wikilinks can very definitely be a form of censorship; if people can't easily find material.
./scream
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Totally agree here. I don't even think censorship is the issue, as censoring would require making the photo unavailable.
I also don't think that moving material into different articles is inherently censorship; otherwise we would be technically censoring almost every time we move material around to form sub articles, but it's still available.
I believe we cannot in any conscience censor the *wikipedia* as a *whole*, but moving stuff around to articles where it is self-evident what is in them (a principle of least surprise) is a different issue. I do also feel *very* strongly indeed that removing wikilinks can very definitely be a form of censorship; if people can't easily find material.
./scream
I don't think this is the issue here. In my proposed compromise, the link is still there, you just have to click it.
./scream
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
I'm pretty sure that's been suggested and rejected by many people. My main reason for rejecting it is the simple fact that it's impossible to fairly and neutrally determine which images should be hidden and which shouldn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It is not really a matter of neutrality here, we don';t have to be neutral in our decision to make an article more palatable to a people whom it deeply offends. It is not our responsibility to cater to the needs of every religious or culture group, but at the same time, it would be gracious or courteous of us not to push these images on a people it so greatly offends. There is a need for moderation here, and it is so deeply registered by the talk page of that article, and by the sheer number of concerns inputted into the otrs system.
"I don't have a way to be fair cause it no article, or all articles, with this hat hab solution" is not a good argument. Let us try and do they right thing here.
./scream
Screamer schreef:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
Question: would you do this
a) for the two unveiled images of Muhammed in [[Muhammed]] b) for all images of Muhammed, including those in the Danish cartoons article c) for all images that offend a large number of people
Just curious
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Screamer schreef:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
Question: would you do this
a) for the two unveiled images of Muhammed in [[Muhammed]] b) for all images of Muhammed, including those in the Danish cartoons article c) for all images that offend a large number of people
Just curious
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/Each situation requires a thoughtful consideration./ If an *entire* culture is offended because of deep seated cultural ideals, then perhaps we should hat hab that image. Especially when such offense is registered in the sheer numbers that is was.
So,
1) Does the image offend an entire culture 2) Are there substantial or valid complaints to the editors 3) Is there a way to compromise without censoring
Addressing these three points would help us in that decision making process, and I believe it helps us in the one article. If further issues of the same magnitude and of the same nature were to arise, I don't think it would be unreasonable to apply the same compromise. There is no slippery slope here, and there is no camel nose in the tent here either.
./screamer
On 18/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Screamer schreef:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
Question: would you do this
a) for the two unveiled images of Muhammed in [[Muhammed]] b) for all images of Muhammed, including those in the Danish cartoons article c) for all images that offend a large number of people
Just curious
Eugene
/Each situation requires a thoughtful consideration./ If an *entire* culture is offended because of deep seated cultural ideals, then perhaps we should hat hab that image. Especially when such offense is registered in the sheer numbers that is was.
So,
- Does the image offend an entire culture
- Are there substantial or valid complaints to the editors
- Is there a way to compromise without censoring
Addressing these three points would help us in that decision making process, and I believe it helps us in the one article. If further issues of the same magnitude and of the same nature were to arise, I don't think it would be unreasonable to apply the same compromise. There is no slippery slope here, and there is no camel nose in the tent here either.
./screamer
Well put, it is a compromise for extreme real-world situations, not for every image that one or a few editors find offensive. Definitely not a slippery slope.
Peter
On Feb 17, 2008 11:32 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Okay, let's apply this to the historical medieval drawings of a Muslim scholar:
- Does the image offend an entire culture
No, just a small but load subset.
- Are there substantial or valid complaints to the editors
Loud ones, yes. Valid? Mostly only in total misrepresentation of 13 centuries of muslim culture and art, so more or less a "no".
- Is there a way to compromise without censoring
Of course we can check if the iconoclastic tendencies in today's factions of Islam are accurately described in the Wikipedia articles. The verbosity of the descriptions of recent events in iconophobia should end where they become self-referential to the Wikipedia project. One could also check if the self-browser-neutering tool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#How_can_I_hide_the_images_usi...) could be mentioned more conveniently. Tagging the images for the css hack would also allow other sites to mirror the images with other default modes.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:32 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Okay, let's apply this to the historical medieval drawings of a Muslim scholar:
Which scholar?
./scream
On 18/02/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Screamer schreef:
Here is a thought. Perhaps the image can be collapsed, in the same manner we do our {{hat}} {{hab}} collapsible text blocks.
Question: would you do this
a) for the two unveiled images of Muhammed in [[Muhammed]] b) for all images of Muhammed, including those in the Danish cartoons article c) for all images that offend a large number of people
Just curious
Eugene
The specifics past the first two which are a significant subset of the last should be left to individual processes. It is better to create a principle and a method first, then deal with specifics using the principle.
Why should wikipedia choose to show offensive pictures together with articles by default anyway? Censorship would be not having the images, not making them less integrated with articles for the huge number of anonymous viewers of wikipedia.
Peter
On Feb 17, 2008 10:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
Does such a thing exist? Honestly, what could possibly be the compromise between "Censor in the name of religion!" and "Do not censor in the name of education!" be?
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
Does such a thing exist? Honestly, what could possibly be the compromise between "Censor in the name of religion!" and "Do not censor in the name of education!" be?
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, it does. See my solution proposal above. We have found a balance there, and if such a thing could be done, it seems it would work. The information is still available, just not as pushed.
./scream
On Feb 17, 2008 11:02 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Yes, it does. See my solution proposal above. We have found a balance there, and if such a thing could be done, it seems it would work. The information is still available, just not as pushed.
Hmmm. My first reaction was "yeah, you invented burkhas for knowledge".
My second thought was an echo from the past, something like the ever-entertaining spoiler debate.
The remaining thoughts are drowning under a list of information that should - at least in the eye of some loud people - be "not as pushed".
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:02 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Yes, it does. See my solution proposal above. We have found a balance there, and if such a thing could be done, it seems it would work. The information is still available, just not as pushed.
Hmmm. My first reaction was "yeah, you invented burkhas for knowledge".
My second thought was an echo from the past, something like the ever-entertaining spoiler debate.
The remaining thoughts are drowning under a list of information that should - at least in the eye of some loud people - be "not as pushed".
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"some loud people" Do you not realize, these people have deep cultural ideals which do not include the photo? How do you disregard that?
./scream
On Feb 17, 2008 11:24 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
"some loud people" Do you not realize, these people have deep cultural ideals which do not include the photo? How do you disregard that?
Yes, and they would have (in my opinion) every right to feel uncomfortable if Wikipedia misrepresented their cultural and religious concepts. Something we don't do.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:24 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
"some loud people" Do you not realize, these people have deep cultural ideals which do not include the photo? How do you disregard that?
Yes, and they would have (in my opinion) every right to feel uncomfortable if Wikipedia misrepresented their cultural and religious concepts. Something we don't do.
Mathias
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 anyone stated in this thread that we were misrepresenting cultural of religious beliefs.
I believe the subject at hand is about making the article more palatable on such a sensitive subject where the exposure of a picture offends an entire people.
./scream
On Feb 17, 2008 11:44 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe the subject at hand is about making the article more palatable on such a sensitive subject where the exposure of a picture offends an entire people.
If you refer to the umma as "an entire people", you will find enough evidence in recent blog postings about the subject that there are "enough" Muslims not offended to falsify your claim. The reasons for not feeling offended are - to what I've seen so far - as diverse as the reasons to shout out the obverse.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:44 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe the subject at hand is about making the article more palatable on such a sensitive subject where the exposure of a picture offends an entire people.
If you refer to the umma as "an entire people", you will find enough evidence in recent blog postings about the subject that there are "enough" Muslims not offended to falsify your claim. The reasons for not feeling offended are - to what I've seen so far - as diverse as the reasons to shout out the obverse.
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where is the data to counter my claim?
./screamer
On Feb 17, 2008 11:53 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Where is the data to counter my claim?
To counter the "entire" part, I need to provide one:
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/01/pictures-of-prophet.html http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/wikipedia_and_dep... http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/wikipedia_prophet... Other feedback came to us via OTRS, for example to info-de-l.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:53 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Where is the data to counter my claim?
To counter the "entire" part, I need to provide one:
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/01/pictures-of-prophet.html http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/wikipedia_and_dep... http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/wikipedia_prophet... Other feedback came to us via OTRS, for example to info-de-l.
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
After reviewing your data posted here, and on otrs... and some of my own, I have to rephrase
-entire+significant subset
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
./screamer
On Feb 18, 2008 12:03 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
Depending on how you carve your subset, you will get any desired result.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 12:03 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
Depending on how you carve your subset, you will get any desired result.
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We have the data required on the talk page and in otrs to establish this, without carving the subset to meet anyones goals. It has already been carved.
./screamer
On 17/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
./screamer
It's no longer that simple. A couple of weeks ago given in would have had little cost. Now that is no longer the case. We cannot give in without every other group that would wish to censor taking note.
geni wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
./screamer
It's no longer that simple. A couple of weeks ago given in would have had little cost. Now that is no longer the case. We cannot give in without every other group that would wish to censor taking note.
I don't recommend that we "give in". I do recommend that we continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides.
--Jimbo
I don't recommend that we "give in". I do recommend that we continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides.
To do that, you need to define what the sides are. We're never going to completely satisfy everybody. The most unreasonable claims can obviously be rejected outright (for example, someone mentioned a demand that only Muslims be allowed to edit Islam-related articles). We need to decide how unreasonable is unreasonable enough to dismiss without consideration.
On 18/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
To do that, you need to define what the sides are. We're never going to completely satisfy everybody. The most unreasonable claims can obviously be rejected outright (for example, someone mentioned a demand that only Muslims be allowed to edit Islam-related articles). We need to decide how unreasonable is unreasonable enough to dismiss without consideration.
Of course that presupposes that they are being unreasonable which in itself is a value judgement.
How do we make value judgements in the wikipedia?
What do we value? (This is not a rhetorical question).
On 18/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
To do that, you need to define what the sides are. We're never going to completely satisfy everybody. The most unreasonable claims can obviously be rejected outright (for example, someone mentioned a demand that only Muslims be allowed to edit Islam-related articles). We need to decide how unreasonable is unreasonable enough to dismiss without consideration.
Of course that presupposes that they are being unreasonable which in itself is a value judgement.
That's pretty much my point. I think everybody here would agree that demanding only Muslims be allowed to edit the article is unreasonable (if anyone doesn't agree, please do speak up). Clearly not everyone agrees that demanding the images not be openly displayed on the article is unreasonable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and exactly where is, as you say, a value judgement, and one we need to decide upon before we can assess the merits of any given suggestion.
On 18/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't recommend that we "give in". I do recommend that we continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides.
--Jimbo
At this point any change from the status quo will be portrayed as giving in. Foretunety the world has a fairly short attention span and we can afford to wait them out.
On 18/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't recommend that we "give in". I do recommend that we continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides.
At this point any change from the status quo will be portrayed as giving in. Foretunety the world has a fairly short attention span and we can afford to wait them out.
I'd give this one another week, yeah. There was a slight burst of interest on Sunday because it made the Observer in the UK (and so CNN called around seeking immediate comment - dunno if they got a story out of it), but I think that's the last of this media frenzy.
- d.
On 2/18/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't recommend that we "give in". I do recommend that we continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides.
--Jimbo
At this point any change from the status quo will be portrayed as giving in. Foretunety the world has a fairly short attention span and we can afford to wait them out.
-- geni
I think you miss Jimbos point by a country mile. The status quo on wikipedia is to "continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides." - what Jimbo is suggesting here is nothing new, it is the *normal* way we do things around here, when we are at our best. Recalcitrance does happen, but it is *not* a best practise.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss Jimbos point by a country mile. The status quo on wikipedia is to "continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides."
There is absolutely no way that is a legit description of what is going on and any attempt to hold such a conversation would need to rewrite some fairly core wikipedia policies such as NPOV.
On 2/19/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss Jimbos point by a country mile. The status quo on wikipedia is to "continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides."
There is absolutely no way that is a legit description of what is going on and any attempt to hold such a conversation would need to rewrite some fairly core wikipedia policies such as NPOV.
-- geni
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
A further problem with an attempt to invoke NPOV here (which I think is really not well advised) is that the precise problem is that to this date, there really are no useful editorial guidelines to apply to images that are all that fundamental. And I specifically count NPOV as one guideline that images have by and large quite openly flauted in most articles without any comment whatsoever.
Many of the questions about what images to use when it is not a question of a documentary type of an image (a photograph or at the very least a portrait that was done at a sitting, or from a sketch or the like), is that we are doing the text equivalent of using a quotation from a historical fiction novel in the encyclopedia article. That is, using the imagination of an artist to make our article a more entertaining read.
In the case of Muhammed, we don't even appear to have the fig leaf of claiming to display one example of an artistic convention about what Muhammed looked like, like arguably in the case of Jesus might obtain (nevermind that that convention doesn't look remotely like a jew).
The most informative of the images about mohammed that we have in the article is in my humble opinion the one with the veil, if this was indeed a customary style of depicting him. There is at least a smidgen of information imparted there, in that veiled was a common way of depicting him in some traditions...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
Not it isn't. Try reading the policy again.
A further problem with an attempt to invoke NPOV here (which I think is really not well advised) is that the precise problem is that to this date, there really are no useful editorial guidelines to apply to images that are all that fundamental. And I specifically count NPOV as one guideline that images have by and large quite openly flauted in most articles without any comment whatsoever.
Just because you miss the relevant debates doesn't mean that they don't happen
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
- d.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:51:29PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
I am beginning to wonder, whether the "good guys" are still interested in writing an encyclopedia. It seems to me, that acting "on principle" (no censorship - whatever that means) in this case is destroying more than it adds. I sometimes even get the impression, that people enjoy the strength of the inside pressure group ("you are offended? good! If you change the pictures, I'll revert and block you. :-b").
Do we have a neutral and unbiased article, when it is necessary to protect pages and block editors en mass? I don't think so.
On Feb 19, 2008 9:38 AM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:51:29PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
I am beginning to wonder, whether the "good guys" are still interested in writing an encyclopedia. It seems to me, that acting "on principle" (no censorship - whatever that means) in this case is destroying more than it adds. I sometimes even get the impression, that people enjoy the strength of the inside pressure group ("you are offended? good! If you change the pictures, I'll revert and block you. :-b").
Do we have a neutral and unbiased article, when it is necessary to protect pages and block editors en mass? I don't think so.
-- Raphael
The "Good guys" are interested in writing an encyclopaedia, just don't mistake the "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces and lamblast everything else you don't like about their religion/religion in general" crowd as the good guys. There is a short list somewhere, however.
For what it's worth, very few editors are blocked at Muhammad, which is probably good, but definitely a result of heavy protection & various other measures. That said, feel free to look at any time in the history with no protection - you'll see that it's a complete, probably unresolvable mess. The "no images" crowd is not the only group that shows up there with an axe or ten to grind. Externally co-ordinated groups have been a problem there before, and doubtlessly will be again. Not only Islamic groups, but (for instance) one trying to insert the word "paedophile" as much as possible into every article that mentions Muhammad.
Cheers, WilyD
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:41AM -0500, Wily D wrote:
The "Good guys" are interested in writing an encyclopaedia, just don't mistake the "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces and lamblast everything else you don't like about their religion/religion in general" crowd as the good guys. There is a short list somewhere, however.
For what it's worth, very few editors are blocked at Muhammad, which is probably good, but definitely a result of heavy protection & various other measures. That said, feel free to look at any time in the history with no protection - you'll see that it's a complete, probably unresolvable mess.
Depends on what you mean by mess?
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
The "no images" crowd is not the only group that shows up there with an axe or ten to grind. Externally co-ordinated groups have been a problem there before, and doubtlessly will be again. Not only Islamic groups, but (for instance) one trying to insert the word "paedophile" as much as possible into every article that mentions Muhammad.
There's a difference. Adding "paedophile" is certainly not a good-faith effort and the editor can be blocked for vandalism. Removing a Muhammad image is certainly not vandalism, because those who do, consider it to be an improvement of this article.
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:41AM -0500, Wily D wrote:
The "Good guys" are interested in writing an encyclopaedia, just don't mistake the "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces and lamblast everything else you don't like about their religion/religion in general" crowd as the good guys. There is a short list somewhere, however.
For what it's worth, very few editors are blocked at Muhammad, which is probably good, but definitely a result of heavy protection & various other measures. That said, feel free to look at any time in the history with no protection - you'll see that it's a complete, probably unresolvable mess.
Depends on what you mean by mess?
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
Two party edit wars can be dealt with by 3RR blocks. 3RR blocks (or generic edit warring blocks) are not an appropriate response to edit wars of 30+ participants. The media attention of late seems to make a lof of editors unfamiliar with the situation think that resolving it is urgent, as if there's some quick solution. There's not. This article needs to be addressed with a long view.
So far as I can tell, nobody who doesn't engage in vandalism is seriously accused of it, and admin powers are not being used to favour any one side (certainly I've been accused to using my admin powers to favour both sides, so I may not be an unbiased observer). There certainly are non-vandal/trolls arguing for the images removal, just as there are vandals & trolls inserting images and the like. By-and-large, editors who behave civilly and don't edit war are free to try and improve the article, editors who don't aren't. This isn't unusual. Like anywhere else, article versions obtained after long, hard discussions lasting many months and resulting in stability aren't easily rewritten without discussion. This isn't unusual.
The "no images" crowd is not the only group that shows up there with an axe or ten to grind. Externally co-ordinated groups have been a problem there before, and doubtlessly will be again. Not only Islamic groups, but (for instance) one trying to insert the word "paedophile" as much as possible into every article that mentions Muhammad.
There's a difference. Adding "paedophile" is certainly not a good-faith effort and the editor can be blocked for vandalism. Removing a Muhammad image is certainly not vandalism, because those who do, consider it to be an improvement of this article.
-- Raphael
Those who're adding paedophile certainly did consider it an improvement to the article, because like (most of) those removing the image, they're not particularly concerned with encyclopaedic value or neutral point of view.
Always, a gentle hand is needed. Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
Two party edit wars can be dealt with by 3RR blocks. 3RR blocks (or generic edit warring blocks) are not an appropriate response to edit wars of 30+ participants.
You are exaggerating. Take a look at the history, there have been two editors edit warring before the page was full protected. Now the blocking admin continues to edit the article alone.
The media attention of late seems to make a lof of editors unfamiliar with the situation think that resolving it is urgent, as if there's some quick solution. There's not. This article needs to be addressed with a long view.
Long view? The problem with that idea is, that you have to use "force" to keep it stable/unchanged. Either you block everybody who doesn't share your "long view" or you full protect the article. New ideas certainly can result in a more stable article, if there are more editors supporting that version.
So far as I can tell, nobody who doesn't engage in vandalism is seriously accused of it, and admin powers are not being used to favour any one side (certainly I've been accused to using my admin powers to favour both sides, so I may not be an unbiased observer).
I wish, I could agree. But the admin who protected the page does consider those who remove the images "vandalizing". He had some other nice things to say, but I don't want to repeat that here.
There certainly are non-vandal/trolls arguing for the images removal, just as there are vandals & trolls inserting images and the like. By-and-large, editors who behave civilly and don't edit war are free to try and improve the article, editors who don't aren't.
Nobody is, as the page is full protected.
br
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
I would be happy, as an heretofore uninvolved admin, to go redo the protection so it's done by an admin who hasn't been involved.
That would be a symbolic moot point, so it's probably not worth bothering with, but if you insist on the technicality I will do so at the next opportunity.
On Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
I would be happy, as an heretofore uninvolved admin, to go redo the protection so it's done by an admin who hasn't been involved.
That would be a symbolic moot point, so it's probably not worth bothering with, but if you insist on the technicality I will do so at the next opportunity. george.herbert@gmail.com
I went to review the protection history; as it stands now, it was reduced to semi-protection by Tariqabjotuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu yesterday. So it's not even full-protected anymore, and only seeing a moderate degree of reversion since then.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 07:28:12PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
I would be happy, as an heretofore uninvolved admin, to go redo the protection so it's done by an admin who hasn't been involved.
That would be a symbolic moot point, so it's probably not worth bothering with, but if you insist on the technicality I will do so at the next opportunity. george.herbert@gmail.com
I went to review the protection history; as it stands now, it was reduced to semi-protection by Tariqabjotuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu yesterday. So it's not even full-protected anymore, and only seeing a moderate degree of reversion since then.
That's interesting, because my request for unprotection has been declined by both the protecting admin and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.
George Herbert schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
I would be happy, as an heretofore uninvolved admin, to go redo the protection so it's done by an admin who hasn't been involved.
That would be a symbolic moot point, so it's probably not worth bothering with, but if you insist on the technicality I will do so at the next opportunity.
No, I don't insist on the technicality, but I'd be happy if you'd state your reasoning.
On Feb 19, 2008 7:31 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
No, I don't insist on the technicality, but I'd be happy if you'd state your reasoning.
We have a perfectly good policy against edit warring, and for page protection when extended ones happen with many participants?
This is nothing new or novel.
On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly not the way to go.
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
Err, Muhammad bounces up and down from semi-to-full all the time. "Protection" without a modifier makes more sense as referring to both semi and full. Not sure who the protecting admin is this time - so I can't comment on whether they're involved in the dispute or not, but Muhammad is the subject of lots of different disputes from time to time.
Two party edit wars can be dealt with by 3RR blocks. 3RR blocks (or generic edit warring blocks) are not an appropriate response to edit wars of 30+ participants.
You are exaggerating. Take a look at the history, there have been two editors edit warring before the page was full protected. Now the blocking admin continues to edit the article alone.
And take a look at the page since the unprotection - in the 52-ish edits on 20 Fev, I count ~22 reverts, and only User:Librarianpmolib might've went over 3RR. But if you give it time for people to realise it's only semi'd, we'll probably see a bit of back and forth soon, under the circumstances.
The media attention of late seems to make a lof of editors unfamiliar with the situation think that resolving it is urgent, as if there's some quick solution. There's not. This article needs to be addressed with a long view.
Long view? The problem with that idea is, that you have to use "force" to keep it stable/unchanged. Either you block everybody who doesn't share your "long view" or you full protect the article. New ideas certainly can result in a more stable article, if there are more editors supporting that version.
Until recently, the page was almost perpetually semi'd in the configuration it was in when the media brew-ha-ha started, after many months of long negotiation, and few blocks, and only a single long full-protection that was unrelated to the issue of images. But yes, the standard is that dialogue is better than constant reverting with "dialogue" in edit summaries.
So far as I can tell, nobody who doesn't engage in vandalism is seriously accused of it, and admin powers are not being used to favour any one side (certainly I've been accused to using my admin powers to favour both sides, so I may not be an unbiased observer).
I wish, I could agree. But the admin who protected the page does consider those who remove the images "vandalizing". He had some other nice things to say, but I don't want to repeat that here.
Err, it's true that editors who routinely change a longstanding version arrived at after a few megs of discussion but who refuse to engage in discussion have been labelled vandals from time to time. Perhaps a poor choice of labels, I can't say. As with everything here, details and context are important. Leaving them out misrepresents the situation.
There certainly are non-vandal/trolls arguing for the images removal, just as there are vandals & trolls inserting images and the like. By-and-large, editors who behave civilly and don't edit war are free to try and improve the article, editors who don't aren't.
Nobody is, as the page is full protected.
Err, at the moment it's not, and ~50% of edits are reverts. This may be a good sign that the brew-ha-ha is blowing over, or may just be editors still unaware it's only semi'd. Only time will tell.
-- 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
WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
WP:PROT says Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as theGeorge W. Bush article. * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies. or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of 3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is full-protected. Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states, that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
Err, Muhammad bounces up and down from semi-to-full all the time. "Protection" without a modifier makes more sense as referring to both semi and full. Not sure who the protecting admin is this time - so I can't comment on whether they're involved in the dispute or not, but Muhammad is the subject of lots of different disputes from time to time.
Not sure and not interested to find out. I consider that to be the biggest problem of Wikipedia. Admins are the untouchable inside group, who can violate policy as they please. They are not accountable and hardly ever loose their administrator privileges.
On 20/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Not sure and not interested to find out. I consider that to be the biggest problem of Wikipedia. Admins are the untouchable inside group, who can violate policy as they please. They are not accountable and hardly ever loose their administrator privileges.
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
- d.
David Gerard schrieb:
On 20/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Not sure and not interested to find out. I consider that to be the biggest problem of Wikipedia. Admins are the untouchable inside group, who can violate policy as they please. They are not accountable and hardly ever loose their administrator privileges.
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
On 2/19/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
- d.
I hope the outside pressure group you are referring to, isn't #wikipedia-en-admins.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
I hope the outside pressure group you are referring to, isn't #wikipedia-en-admins.
o_0 Er, no, I'd be referring to the "several thousand" people who put 180,000 signatures on the petition that started all this.
- d.
On 2/19/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
This fails when a "side" is not people whose interest is in writing an encyclopedia, but an outside pressure group who don't understand NPOV and don't care.
I hope the outside pressure group you are referring to, isn't #wikipedia-en-admins.
o_0 Er, no, I'd be referring to the "several thousand" people who put 180,000 signatures on the petition that started all this.
- d.
Goody. =DD
Just for a moment there I thought you were channeling Giano...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Feb 19, 2008 7:50 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss Jimbos point by a country mile. The status quo on wikipedia is to "continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides."
There is absolutely no way that is a legit description of what is going on and any attempt to hold such a conversation would need to rewrite some fairly core wikipedia policies such as NPOV.
-- geni
The Core of NPOV is that there is something that is satisfactory to all sides, or at least equally unpalatable to all.
A further problem with an attempt to invoke NPOV here (which I think is really not well advised) is that the precise problem is that to this date, there really are no useful editorial guidelines to apply to images that are all that fundamental. And I specifically count NPOV as one guideline that images have by and large quite openly flauted in most articles without any comment whatsoever.
Many of the questions about what images to use when it is not a question of a documentary type of an image (a photograph or at the very least a portrait that was done at a sitting, or from a sketch or the like), is that we are doing the text equivalent of using a quotation from a historical fiction novel in the encyclopedia article. That is, using the imagination of an artist to make our article a more entertaining read.
In the case of Muhammed, we don't even appear to have the fig leaf of claiming to display one example of an artistic convention about what Muhammed looked like, like arguably in the case of Jesus might obtain (nevermind that that convention doesn't look remotely like a jew).
The most informative of the images about mohammed that we have in the article is in my humble opinion the one with the veil, if this was indeed a customary style of depicting him. There is at least a smidgen of information imparted there, in that veiled was a common way of depicting him in some traditions...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Both veiled and unveiled depictions have substantial historic traditions - so far in our discussions at Talk:Muhammad, I haven't seen any studies on the relative prominance of the two traditions.
Is anyone familiar with such a study? WilyD
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Wily D wrote:
Both veiled and unveiled depictions have substantial historic traditions - so far in our discussions at Talk:Muhammad, I haven't seen any studies on the relative prominance of the two traditions.
None of those "traditions" are nearly as prominent as Muslim caligraphy. With all the energy people put into finding Muhammad images, we have found - what 40? - in >1.5 thousand years old culture? Compare that to occidental/christian art? Here the output is more like 40.000/year.
On Feb 19, 2008 9:47 AM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Wily D wrote:
Both veiled and unveiled depictions have substantial historic traditions - so far in our discussions at Talk:Muhammad, I haven't seen any studies on the relative prominance of the two traditions.
None of those "traditions" are nearly as prominent as Muslim caligraphy. With all the energy people put into finding Muhammad images, we have found - what 40? - in >1.5 thousand years old culture? Compare that to occidental/christian art? Here the output is more like 40.000/year.
-- Raphael
The 37 I quoted was the number on the commons page. By comparison http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confucius - 4 images http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha 50 images http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jesus 24 images
The Commons page probably isn't a good metric - one could count the images in the categories - but there's no particular reason to believe that's a better metric either - it certainly reflects the biases of who has internet access, scanners & so forth.
But yes, [[Muhammad]] leads with a piece of caligraphy recognising that's probably the most prominant historical tradition. We only have a couple of piece's of caligraphy freely licensed, and only one of any apparent external importance http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aziz_efendi-muhammad_alayhi_s-salam.... while we have several dozen historical illustrations of Muhammad from various prominant sources (e.g. the Siyer-ı Nebi http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Siyer-%C4%B1_Nebi). Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Muhammad or spend some effort location historically important caligraphy if you feel the correct balanced isn't being achieved (and this opinion is not uncommon among reasonable editors).
The comparison to other traditions isn't really relevant.
Cheers WilyD
On Feb 19, 2008 6:51 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss Jimbos point by a country mile. The status quo on wikipedia is to "continue to dialog about possibilities which would be satisfactory to all sides."
There is absolutely no way that is a legit description of what is going on and any attempt to hold such a conversation would need to rewrite some fairly core wikipedia policies such as NPOV.
-- geni
Err, we've been holding such a conversation for some time now (can't recall when I got involved in it, but I figure ~ 1 year ago. No doubt it'll go on for some time longer. Dialogue doesn't mean the article changes, and indeed it was stable on my "4 point" image solution for some time, with a minor hiccough when one image was deleted as a suspected copyvio - and has now been minorly rearranged for undue weight considerations (and frankly just layout, which was shit before).
NPOV can only be compremised by actual edits to the article- dialogue has no ability to affect the article unless we come to a resolution and implement some proposal. Dialogue does give people a chance to vent and cool down a little, or become familiar with our goal here, or get board and move along. And quite frankly, the current state of the Muhammad article is lousy - a little dialogue won't be the end of the world.
Cheers WilyD
After reviewing your data posted here, and on otrs... and some of my own, I have to rephrase
-entire+significant subset
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
It offends a significant subset of Muslims, I would agree. A significant subset of *that* subset will not be happy unless the images are removed completely, and this compromise will not help them at all. The key question is how many people are offended by the images as they are now and would not be offended by them if they were hidden in the manner suggested. Do we have any evidence that that is a significant number?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
After reviewing your data posted here, and on otrs... and some of my own, I have to rephrase
-entire+significant subset
I believe however, is is offending a significant subset of people. Enough to where taking this compromise solution maybe both in the interest of the project, and the readership.
It offends a significant subset of Muslims, I would agree. A significant subset of *that* subset will not be happy unless the images are removed completely, and this compromise will not help them at all. The key question is how many people are offended by the images as they are now and would not be offended by them if they were hidden in the manner suggested. Do we have any evidence that that is a significant number?
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 can't do that, I think significant is a subjective metric here.
./scream
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't do that, I think significant is a subjective metric here.
Significance is always subjective. How about we come up with evidence that gives us a rough number and then we can decide if it's significant or not?
Google and other search engines usually give you a stick in the ground but without being completely binding.
On 17/02/2008, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't do that, I think significant is a subjective metric here.
Significance is always subjective. How about we come up with evidence that gives us a rough number and then we can decide if it's significant or not?
Google and other search engines usually give you a stick in the ground but without being completely binding.
I can't think of a search term that is going to reveal the extent of a certain opinion within the Muslim community. For a start, the more extreme a view is, the more people are going to talk about it, so you are naturally going to find disproportionately more cases of the extreme view in a search than the less extreme view. It's possible to compensate for that, but I have no idea what kind of modifier to use.
On 17/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can't think of a search term that is going to reveal the extent of a certain opinion within the Muslim community. For a start, the more extreme a view is, the more people are going to talk about it, so you are naturally going to find disproportionately more cases of the extreme view in a search than the less extreme view. It's possible to compensate for that, but I have no idea what kind of modifier to use.
I started simply googling on 'Muhammad', since that's the name of the article.
The only extreme view I found was a parody site called 'dressup muhammad', which I disregarded.
I found 2 examples of Western encyclopedias, both of which had a single veiled image, and no other examples of images of Muhammad in the first two dozen hits that were applicable (ignoring hits that were unrelated, Muhammad Ali for example).
Quite frankly it was rather boring, it looked like I would have had to go a *long* way down to find an image or any sign of contentiousness at all.
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
It offends a significant subset of Muslims, I would agree. A significant subset of *that* subset will not be happy unless the images are removed completely, and this compromise will not help them at all. The key question is how many people are offended by the images as they are now and would not be offended by them if they were hidden in the manner suggested. Do we have any evidence that that is a significant number?
Since the "costs" are negligible, it is worth a try.
Since the "costs" are negligible, it is worth a try.
That's debatable. The costs in terms of effort are pretty negligible, I agree, but the fact that so many emails have been exchanged on this subject suggests that there are a significant number of people that think there are other, significant, costs (to reputation, neutrality, etc.).
On 17/02/2008, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I don't think anyone stated in this thread that we were misrepresenting cultural of religious beliefs.
I believe that we are, by over-emphasis.
I believe the subject at hand is about making the article more palatable on such a sensitive subject where the exposure of a picture offends an entire people.
I don't think so, I think this is a policy question; and DEPENDING on what policy gets decided it can be decided what actions to take.
Some *different* policies could be:
1. we don't censor articles at all
2. we don't censor the *wikipedia* (but we can move things around to minimise offense- e.g. a principle of least surprise
3. we do censor the wikipedia
4. we decide a context for the wikipedia (e.g. it's a purely western encyclopedia), and tune it to follow those mores (i.e. not censored but in accordance with emphasis expected from a Western encyclopedia)
5. we decide that the Muhammad article is currently out of line with the majority of sources on Muhammad, and fix it (in other words policy is fine, but the article is an inaccurate precis).
6. current policy is perfect, current Muhammad article is perfect, they're just a bunch of whingers.
This is not intended to be a complete or accurate list; it's an example, feel free to discuss/propose policies.
./scream
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:02 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Yes, it does. See my solution proposal above. We have found a balance there, and if such a thing could be done, it seems it would work. The information is still available, just not as pushed.
Hmmm. My first reaction was "yeah, you invented burkhas for knowledge".
My second thought was an echo from the past, something like the ever-entertaining spoiler debate.
The remaining thoughts are drowning under a list of information that should - at least in the eye of some loud people - be "not as pushed".
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Walking up to someone wearing a burkha, and then removing it is likely to get me in trouble. Clicking on the hat hab, or the link, is not. Please use a better argument that makes sense.
./scream
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
Does such a thing exist? Honestly, what could possibly be the compromise between "Censor in the name of religion!" and "Do not censor in the name of education!" be?
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
Usually what I would look for in a case like this would be something which neither side views as censorship. Obviously some people will view anything other than their most-preferred solution as censorship, but usually moderates can find a happy enough solution somewhere.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
Does such a thing exist? Honestly, what could possibly be the compromise between "Censor in the name of religion!" and "Do not censor in the name of education!" be?
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
Usually what I would look for in a case like this would be something which neither side views as censorship. Obviously some people will view anything other than their most-preferred solution as censorship, but usually moderates can find a happy enough solution somewhere.
I can't recall such a compromise having been successfully worked out in the past though, at least with regards to images. Do you have some sort of example in mind? The last offensive-image brouhaha I can remember had to do with [[autofellatio]], which as of this writing still has a photograph of a man performing autofellatio at the top of the article. So the resolution seems to generally consist of keeping the images in and waiting for the opponents to give up. On occasion a sleazy-looking sexual image has been replaced with a more tasteful-looking one, but that's about all the compromise I can recall in that department.
-Mark
On 18/02/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The last offensive-image brouhaha I can remember had to do with [[autofellatio]], which as of this writing still has a photograph of a man performing autofellatio at the top of the article. So the resolution seems to generally consist of keeping the images in and waiting for the opponents to give up. On occasion a sleazy-looking sexual image has been replaced with a more tasteful-looking one, but that's about all the compromise I can recall in that department.
I must be misremembering, but didn't we write an entire technical patch - the bad image list - to avoid, er, people having the autofellatio image in an article, rather than as a linked file?
On Feb 18, 2008 10:42 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I must be misremembering, but didn't we write an entire technical patch - the bad image list - to avoid, er, people having the autofellatio image in an article, rather than as a linked file?
The bad image list prevents the autofellatio image from appearing in any article except as a link, with the exception of the autofellatio article itself. All of the articles on the bad image list are accompanied by a list of excepted pages where they are allowed to appear. The point of the list is simply to prevent vandalism, not to prevent the images from being used at all.
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
A cynic would suggest that if you edited the article, the core community would fall in line behind you as you are Our Godlike Founder...
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
A cynic would suggest that if you edited the article, the core community would fall in line behind you as you are Our Godlike Founder...
That cynic would be living in the past. Jimbo's opinion carries a lot of weight, but it's been some time since it was considered sacrosanct.
On 18/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
A cynic would suggest that if you edited the article, the core community would fall in line behind you as you are Our Godlike Founder...
That cynic would be living in the past. Jimbo's opinion carries a lot of weight, but it's been some time since it was considered sacrosanct.
Are you seriously telling me that you believe that the community would oppose Jimbo on a significant and divisive issue?
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Are you seriously telling me that you believe that the community would oppose Jimbo on a significant and divisive issue?
I'd say, based on past performance, that many would do so for the sake of it.
- d.
On Feb 18, 2008 9:56 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
A cynic would suggest that if you edited the article, the core community would fall in line behind you as you are Our Godlike Founder...
That cynic would be living in the past. Jimbo's opinion carries a lot of weight, but it's been some time since it was considered sacrosanct.
Are you seriously telling me that you believe that the community would oppose Jimbo on a significant and divisive issue?
Depends on what he did, I'd guess. Note in his hypothetical example, he actually knows of a solution that'd work. That - uh - is likely to significantly impact the outcome.
Cheers WilyD
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I don't know. :) If I did know, I would just edit the article and both sides would cheer for me.
A cynic would suggest that if you edited the article, the core community would fall in line behind you as you are Our Godlike Founder...
That cynic would be living in the past. Jimbo's opinion carries a lot of weight, but it's been some time since it was considered sacrosanct.
Are you seriously telling me that you believe that the community would oppose Jimbo on a significant and divisive issue?
If people strongly disagree with something, they'll speak up, regardless of who said/did it. Just take a look at the result of Jimbo reverting the attribution policy - there were plenty of people that strongly opposed him doing that (a minority of the community, though, certainly), and that was just a procedural dispute. This is a matter of content and policy and is likely to result in opposers being much more vocal.
One point that I don't believe has been made; there is some precedent for treating articles of an iconic nature differently to other articles; for example the MOS more or less mandates that we should emphasise national varieties of English for subjects that are iconic for a particular nationality; we treat these in the context of the nation that originated them.
While that doesn't speak to articles iconic to a particular *religion*, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that some extension to the guidelines could potentially be made for these kinds of cases where edit warring, at the very least, is rather likely.
The question would be what kind of guidelines could be drawn up; perhaps if the guidelines were such that:
a) material offensive to significant number of proponents associated with that religion was moved to a different article
b) clearly labelled wikiinks were present that pointed to the moved material
If wikilinks are present, then I don't see any reason for javascript mechanisms, and we would not be censoring ourselves, the material would still be present in the wikipedia, and in clickable form.
I have some observations, but first a request: please don't post one-line response after one line response. Make a considered point, and post it.
Firstly, I agree with Ansell - this is a situation which should be decided on principle, and the principle should be agreed upon before technical implementation is debated. There are a number of ways to obscure, hide, move, remove or display images. The question isn't "How is it done?" but "Should we do it?"
Some have suggested that the principle here should be to accommodate, at least in part, the religious doctrine of a group of people. I strongly disagree - it seems to me like many decisions have been taken in the past on Wikipedia directly in contravention of this proposed principle, and rightly so in my opinion. There are untold numbers of ways we can find to offend someone or many people, and this likelihood has never guided the insertion of encyclopedic material. The sheer number of offended people is a detail that is irrelevant to the principle - whether it is 3, 3 million, 300 million or 3 billion. The question is do we adhere to _our_ principles, against censorship based on values others would impose on us, or adhere to the principles of those others?
The spectre of compromise is just that - it is an illusion, constructed by those of us who assume that compromise with religious fundamentalism is possible. It isn't. Where have you seen it claimed that obscuring the images opposed by fundamentalist Muslims behind hat/hab will placate them? Does the petition say "You must make it so that if we don't want to see it, we don't have to?" It doesn't. The belief that a technical compromise will solve this problem without creating a thousand like it is mistaken - this thread, and the others, is a reaction in part to the recent significant publicity this issue has achieved. When its reported in the New York Times that Wikipedia removed the images of Muhammad in reaction to petitiononline.com and vandalism (and it will be), you can expect that our many other similar nationalism related problems will worsen through the precedent.
Finally, if you look through the archives of [[Talk:Muhammad]] and the FAQ there, you'll notice that practically every possible compromise has been considered and discarded. Not a single new argument has been made in any of the list threads about this subject - and all of these arguments have been considered and rejected by the editors who actually work on the Muhammad page. Before anyone on the mailing list again says "Hey, two emails in support! Be bold, go change it, and everyone will cheer because no one has thought of this marvelous solution before..." please consider that there are folks who have spent considerable time on the article but aren't signed up to the mailing list, and changes based on "We discussed it on WikiEN-l!!!!" probably won't go over well.
Nathan
on 2/17/08 10:29 PM, Nathan at nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I have some observations, but first a request: please don't post one-line response after one line response. Make a considered point, and post it.
C'mon, Nathan, ease up. What if I have a one-line question, or a one-line response to someone else's question; or the point I'm trying to make can best be made with a one-line statement? That's conversation. Every post on this List shouldn't be a speech.
Marc Riddell
On Feb 17, 2008 10:41 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Every post on this List shouldn't be a speech.
I agree wholeheartedly! I won't read a speech, too short an attention span at this time of night. ;-)
Marc Riddell
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 mind a single one line response or question (and I'm proving it now) I just find it irritating when I see them over and over again ;-) I suppose some people feel the same about speeches on the list, but I prefer to read what someone thinks all at once ;-P
On Feb 17, 2008 10:44 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:41 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Every post on this List shouldn't be a speech.
I agree wholeheartedly! I won't read a speech, too short an attention span at this time of night. ;-)
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[[meatball:ReplyToTheWholePost]] springs to mind.
On 18/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't mind a single one line response or question (and I'm proving it now) I just find it irritating when I see them over and over again ;-) I suppose some people feel the same about speeches on the list, but I prefer to read what someone thinks all at once ;-P
On Feb 17, 2008 10:44 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:41 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net
wrote:
Every post on this List shouldn't be a speech.
I agree wholeheartedly! I won't read a speech, too short an attention span at this time of night. ;-)
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
sent to
this address will probably get lost.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 2/17/08 10:52 PM, Nathan at nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't mind a single one line response or question (and I'm proving it now) I just find it irritating when I see them over and over again ;-) I suppose some people feel the same about speeches on the list, but I prefer to read what someone thinks all at once ;-P
I hear ya, Nathan, and I agree with you about what seems at times to be mindless one-line banter. But, sometimes, the greatest impact can be made in one well-chosen line. As for speeches, I can be pretty long-winded, myself, sometimes; but I'm trying to cut back ;-).
Be healthy,
Marc
On Feb 17, 2008 10:44 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:41 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Every post on this List shouldn't be a speech.
I agree wholeheartedly! I won't read a speech, too short an attention span at this time of night. ;-)
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:29:12PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
I have some observations, but first a request: please don't post one-line response after one line response. Make a considered point, and post it.
Firstly, I agree with Ansell - this is a situation which should be decided on principle, and the principle should be agreed upon before technical implementation is debated. There are a number of ways to obscure, hide, move, remove or display images. The question isn't "How is it done?" but "Should we do it?"
Some have suggested that the principle here should be to accommodate, at least in part, the religious doctrine of a group of people. I strongly disagree - it seems to me like many decisions have been taken in the past on Wikipedia directly in contravention of this proposed principle, and rightly so in my opinion.
<snip/>
I'd expect a more wise response from someone called Nathan: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6198&pageno=92
The spectre of compromise is just that - it is an illusion, constructed by those of us who assume that compromise with religious fundamentalism is possible.
<snip/>
Yeah sure, label it fundamentalism. How about extremism, radicalism, t...?
Finally, if you look through the archives of [[Talk:Muhammad]] and the FAQ there, you'll notice that practically every possible compromise has been considered and discarded.
Unless of course the compromise has been discarded before consideration.
Not a single new argument has been made in any of the list threads about this subject - and all of these arguments have been considered and rejected by the editors who actually work on the Muhammad page.
And sometimes even rejected beforehand. One only has to read the pink boxes to understand what is allowed in the discussion. Change certainly isn't.
On Feb 17, 2008 10:29 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I have some observations, but first a request: please don't post one-line response after one line response. Make a considered point, and post it.
Firstly, I agree with Ansell - this is a situation which should be decided on principle, and the principle should be agreed upon before technical implementation is debated. There are a number of ways to obscure, hide, move, remove or display images. The question isn't "How is it done?" but "Should we do it?"
Some have suggested that the principle here should be to accommodate, at least in part, the religious doctrine of a group of people. I strongly disagree - it seems to me like many decisions have been taken in the past on Wikipedia directly in contravention of this proposed principle, and rightly so in my opinion. There are untold numbers of ways we can find to offend someone or many people, and this likelihood has never guided the insertion of encyclopedic material. The sheer number of offended people is a detail that is irrelevant to the principle - whether it is 3, 3 million, 300 million or 3 billion. The question is do we adhere to _our_ principles, against censorship based on values others would impose on us, or adhere to the principles of those others?
The spectre of compromise is just that - it is an illusion, constructed by those of us who assume that compromise with religious fundamentalism is possible. It isn't. Where have you seen it claimed that obscuring the images opposed by fundamentalist Muslims behind hat/hab will placate them? Does the petition say "You must make it so that if we don't want to see it, we don't have to?" It doesn't. The belief that a technical compromise will solve this problem without creating a thousand like it is mistaken - this thread, and the others, is a reaction in part to the recent significant publicity this issue has achieved. When its reported in the New York Times that Wikipedia removed the images of Muhammad in reaction to petitiononline.com and vandalism (and it will be), you can expect that our many other similar nationalism related problems will worsen through the precedent.
Finally, if you look through the archives of [[Talk:Muhammad]] and the FAQ there, you'll notice that practically every possible compromise has been considered and discarded. Not a single new argument has been made in any of the list threads about this subject - and all of these arguments have been considered and rejected by the editors who actually work on the Muhammad page. Before anyone on the mailing list again says "Hey, two emails in support! Be bold, go change it, and everyone will cheer because no one has thought of this marvelous solution before..." please consider that there are folks who have spent considerable time on the article but aren't signed up to the mailing list, and changes based on "We discussed it on WikiEN-l!!!!" probably won't go over well.
Nathan
Err, if one has the implimentation for a "Click here to hide all images of Muhammad in this article" hatnote or such for the article, I think we could round up a cabal and force it through. Opt-in censorship is already endorsed, although not easy in implementation - opt-out censorship seems to be generally rejected.
That said, the majority of editors who work on the article with any seriousness recognise it's in terrible shape, and the constant problems with images (and a few other campaigns that've been organised to try and force the article to conform with some POV or another) have been a major hinderance in fixing the article up. Anything that actually halfway resolved the issue would be welcome.
Cheers WilyD
On Feb 17, 2008 4:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Jimbo
I invite you to come participate at Talk:Muhammad and find how common both these positions are. If you're interested in finding a more moderate position among editors who're familiar with the goals of Wikipedia, the Muhammad article, Islam in general (which isn't as relevant as everyone thinks - Muhammad was a real guy of historical importance, not just some Islamic myth), Muhammad in particular and who takes a moderate stance on images on [[Muhammad]] recognising both their historical and educational value and the concerns of their potential offensiveness, you can try contacting User:Itaqallah on their userpage or via email if they have it enabled (not sure about that). I'm not sure anyone else meets that extended description.
On a somewhat seperate point, it's disappointing to see how underappreciated Muhammad is in these discussion, which often seem to adopt the "Muhammad belongs to Islam" paradigm that's not too often articulated but one of the pillars of the "remove all image of Muhammad" position. Even if not a single person had ever converted to Islam, Muhammad would still be a core topic on Wikipedia - he's immensely important to the encyclopaedia outside of his contributions to Islam, something which is not being recognised enough.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 17, 2008 4:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Jimbo
I invite you to come participate at Talk:Muhammad and find how common both these positions are.
<snip/>
What he is trying to tell you, is that your email is "silly". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raphael1&diff=prev&a...
br
On 17/02/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
Jimbo:
The problem is that it is difficult to find a compromise when the petitioners are saying "these images must be removed from Wikipedia completely" - which is what many of them *are* saying... the images can't be "a little bit" in Wikipedia any more than a woman can be "a little bit pregnant"...
On a lighter note (and $DEITY knows this thread could use one!), I have just had described to me the concept of images of Muhammad being "not kosher" :-D
On 2/17/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
I have read all that has been said on this matter on the mailing list with some attention (and admittedly, frustration stemming from the palpable intractability of the inherent issues). I find Tim's view eye-opening, as usual.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
Fully agree that one won't ever fly as a basis of operations for any community of ours.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
I am not sure if it is useful to note, but purely logically speaking, the second position you describe (no 2.) is not fully integral, but can be broken into two separate positions, viz:
2. (a) Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial decisionmaking.
2. (b) Anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
From a purely logical standpoint, one might hold 2. (b) to be a
clear straw man argument without standing, as you posit, but nevertheless hold 2. (a) to be a valid stance, without internal contradiction.
If, to play the devils advocate here for a moment, I wanted to attempt to justify 2. (a), I would probably do it something like thus:
Since our editorial judgements are intended to attain to the highest useful standards of presentation of factual information and not the lowest, any low-ball standards are always irrelevant.
For text, we don't write "Josh is Gay", but use more encyclopedic forms like "Josh has a relationship with lifelong companion Kevin."
So in attaining to the best, we need not concern ourselves, in ultimo with avoiding the worst. Since the worst is not the best, it is enough for us to note that what it is is not-best, without any need to make note of the fact that it is the-worst.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
I really think what should be done is to approach the situation from the viewpoint of what is the *best* way to encyclopaedically illustrate articles about any legendary figure.
Personally I do think some of the images in that muhammed article do not infact serve to inform the reader about any relevant matter of encyclopaedic note.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 18/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I really think what should be done is to approach the situation from the viewpoint of what is the *best* way to encyclopaedically illustrate articles about any legendary figure.
Well, yeah. That's pretty much the position the WMF has been giving to the press:
"Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
Filtering Wikipedia content is something redistributors can do.
The petitioners want these images not to *exist*.
- d.
On 2/18/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I really think what should be done is to approach the situation from the viewpoint of what is the *best* way to encyclopaedically illustrate articles about any legendary figure.
Well, yeah. That's pretty much the position the WMF has been giving to the press:
"Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
Filtering Wikipedia content is something redistributors can do.
The petitioners want these images not to *exist*.
- d.
That line is actually orthogonal to what I was saying. My idea is that protests should not *prevent* us from seeing if we can improve the relevance of what images we choose to use in the article. I repeat that I think from purely encyclopaedic principles, some of the images in the muhammed article aren't useful.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Right. I'd always been against the image per [[User:Voice of All/Image concerns]].
It a) Adds practically nothing and is not informative, b) Is extremely inflammatory. There is just no serious reason to keep it. I take pragmatic criteria on this sort of stuff. I don't care what the Koran or Hadith say, so reducto ad absurdem arguments about "ban all images of people" are beside the point.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi all... I was directed to this discussion by WilyD.. so here are some of my thoughts..
It is indeed important that we encourage moderation and a sensible presentation of a sensitive issue. Despite the demands, I think what irks most people is the way the article currently presents the depictions (were it just a case of the presence of depictions on Wikipedia, we would be seeing much higher levels of vandalism on [[Depictions of Muhammad]]).
The depictions represented are, naturally, of historical value and represent how some Muslims represented him in venerative fashion. However, an issue that must be considered is that depictions of Muhammad did not prevail as an art form. While there was indeed plenty of veneration of Muhammad, it occured in alternative forms, such as calligraphy or poetic description/visualisation, and so on.
I also think most people understand that we aren't necessarily trying to depict Muhammad himself, but we are just representing how he has sometimes been represented in tradition.
While we should indeed represent this depictional tradition to some extent, the current presentation in the article (as of writing this) is terribly unbalanced. By having four depictions of Muhammad on show, all prominently positioned in the top third of the article, there is undue and excessive focus on what was/is - as a matter of fact - a minority tradition. Myself and some other editors in good standing believe this poses a neutrality/WP:UNDUE problem through overstating this tradition - which also has an effect of misleading the reader in suggesting a stronger historical prevalence than reality affords. I had previously raised the issue here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive#Overkill
I did later propose alternative versions which I believe are consistent with WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#CENSORED, which received generally positive but rather minimal feedback, and which I believe will go a long way towards easing the perception of calculated image-spamming or some sort of deliberate campaign to offend ( the proposals may be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive#Tweaks). It's essential that we are sensible and balanced in how we present such depictions.
Regards,
Itaqallah
On 18/02/2008, Voice of All jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
Right. I'd always been against the image per [[User:Voice of All/Image concerns]].
It a) Adds practically nothing and is not informative, b) Is extremely inflammatory. There is just no serious reason to keep it. I take pragmatic criteria on this sort of stuff. I don't care what the Koran or Hadith say, so reducto ad absurdem arguments about "ban all images of people" are beside the point.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives
of
those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the
people
refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
I agree very much with Tim. The Wikipedia way has always been to attempt to find a common ground which is widely satisfactory to all but the most unreasonable people.
Here are two unreasonable positions:
- Anything which offends me (or offends anyone) has to be removed from
Wikipedia completely.
- Offensiveness is completely irrelevant to all editorial
decisionmaking and in fact anyone who mentions finding something offensive should be mocked, and we should try to find even more offensive things to put in Wikipedia just to show them.
Fortunately, both are straw-men positions not advocated by anyone.
So here we are in the middle trying to find a way to educate and inform in a mature, responsible way.
It is a shame that in this thread we do not have any representatives who might be able to find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the moderate petitioners, while at the same time fulfilling our general desire to not censor Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22I-want-to-at-least-kill-the-responsible-person.%22-... Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.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
There is nothing inappropriate or irresponsible about showing a picture of a bloke in a beard in the article about the bloke. Sorry, Jimmy, "Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg" stays.