On 8/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple of months ago three admins of Aceh Wikipedia
decided that it
is not acceptable that they participate in the project which holds
Muhammad depictions. By the project, they mean Wikimedia in general,
including Wikimedia Commons. It was just a matter of time when they
would create their own wiki. And they created that moth or two after
leaving Wikimedia. And what do you think which project has more
chances for success: the one without editors or the other with three
editors? So, while the reason for leaving couldn't be counted among
reasonable ones, the product is the same as if they had a valid
reason. And there are plenty of valid reasons, among them almost
universal problem of highly bureaucratic structures on Wikimedia
projects.
Politics and religion are the two areas where this problem usually
occurs. It is perfectly acceptable to present differing POVs if the
parties involved can find no common ground. They must be respected for
their differences as much for their similarities. That means that a
neutral platform such as Wikipedia must be able to host differing
opinions. This problem was popped up long ago when people of differing
opinions began altering pages and deleting the work of others. It was
addressed with implementation of the "edit lock" and frequent monitoring.
An Encyclopedia must be free to present all sides of this kind of issue
so third parties can come to understand the reasons behind the
differences. Refusal to do so moves the platform away from the mission
statement of neutrality.
Anyone who cannot support this commitment to neutrality is free to leave
and present their own POV - but they lose that neutral credibility in
the process of doing so.