[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix
midom.lists at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 15:06:50 UTC 2008
> If the images have been considered
> important/relevant in academic circles, only then they should be
Since when Wikipedia is (or should be) so elitist and completely
aligned with goals and works of academia...
This is quite big controversy and phenomena of modern world. How many
academic papers and relevancy is for Pokemons?
Everyone is quite happy about controversies of the past resolved and
described ("haha, earth is flat! no, it is of tabernacle shape! is it
carried by whales or turtles?").
If neutrality would not be 'offending' or 'liberal bias!', there
would be no need for Conservapedia. Oh wait, maybe there still is no
need for Conservapedia.
On the other hand, this isn't discussing "is the information biased"
We do know, that information itself is neutral.
We do know it is imagination, though goes back centuries.
We do know, some may take it as targeted against them, or to offend
them. It is not, though.
The information itself is not biased (as in, not true, according to
someone), the perception is (immoral, prejudice, etc).
Even if those pictures are removed from one article, they may
certainly always end up in another - the one explaining the controversy.
The topic though is more difficult - how do our goals of freedom,
independence and neutrality, align with our goal to distribute and
disseminate the content.
Which goals should we chose? How do we go into compromises?
We will always have individuals, groups, communities, countries and
civilizations, not wishing to see some or other information in our
projects - and there will always be range of actions against us -
banning, badmouthing, not donating, not supporting.
Are we going to stand for free information, or for information
available to everyone?
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
More information about the foundation-l