[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix

Domas Mituzas 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
> included.

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"  
or not.
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 mailing list