[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix

[Mark Williamson]

I think "shitism" is the wrong word. Perhaps you meant "shi'a"?

On 20/02/2008, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Not sure if..."
>  I think exactly because you know both worlds, islam and wikipedia, you are
>  highly qualified to comment. And of course you are biased, to some extent we
>  probably all are biased - but without realizing it.
>
>
>  " Because they consider (muslims) and believe "
>
> I assume that you mean sunni muslims, as from further up in this discussion
>  i understood that in shitism opinions slightly differ on this topic.
>
>
>  "increase its educational value, null."
>
> May i disagree on this point? They at least show, i suppose, as some of the
>  illustrations on the Muhammed articles are some centuries old, that the
>  opinion on this subject has varied over the centuries.
>
>  On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>  > On Feb 20, 2008 4:34 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > > What I think would be most useful at this point is to try and compile
>  > > an informational resource about this topic, so that we can see all
>  > > points of view at a glance, and try to educate people better about
>  > > this topic. More information and education will help to guide more
>  > > informed decisions on this topic.
>  > >
>  > > Some kinds of information that we should obtain and make public are:
>  >
>  >
>  > Not sure if I should reply considering that I'm a muslim and might be
>  > biased, but here is a reply:
>  >
>  > >
>  > > 1) Who exactly is offended by this and why?
>  >
>  > Who:
>  > I can say that most (not all) egyptian muslims would be offended by these
>  > pictures, either the pictures on [[Muhammed]] or the ones on jyllands
>  > posten
>  > article.
>  > Why:
>  > Because they consider (muslims) and believe that muhammed isn't like any
>  > other person whom could be depicted in a picture and humiliated by some
>  > artists. they consider him as a holy figure, like the best person ever
>  > born
>  > and the one who guided them to a better life etc. So when people start to
>  > show paintings and even worse, cartoons insulting him, they get upset and
>  > offended. they don't view it from 'free speech' 'freedom of expression'
>  >  or
>  > 'freedom to write' points but rather as an insult and disrespect to them
>  > and
>  > to their religion.
>  >
>  > >
>  > > 2) Is there a prohibition on simply having these images, or are they
>  > > only offensive when viewed by certain people? Ie, is it possible to
>  > > have these images, but hold them on a page where they are not readily
>  > > viewable, or only viewable after a warning?
>  >
>  > On jyllands posten's article on arabic wikipedia, there is a warning and a
>  > link to the images.
>  >
>  > >
>  > > 3) What are the specific uses and values of the images currently on
>  > > display? Is there significant historical context to these images, and
>  > > are they closely integrated into the article?
>  >
>  > imho, they are just there as test or challenge of wikipedia's freedom of
>  > expression and a source for (false) feel good that wikipedia is free.
>  > beside
>  > that, as a helpful illustrations that add to the articles and increase its
>  > educational value, null.
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  > > <censored> :P
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > > --Andrew Whitworth
>  > >
>  > >
>  > --user:alnokta
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  test
>
> _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.