[Foundation-l] Muhammad

[Oldak Quill]

On 10/03/2008, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  As far as I'm aware, the issue isn't that the image is in the article.
> >  The issue is that Wikipedia (or WF) is publishing the image at all.
> >
> >  Where do you suggest the compromise is?
>
> I've heard a few things suggested over the course of the conversation:
> 1) Edit the images to remove the face of Mohammed from them.
> 2) Rename images which aren't expressly known to be Mohammed (such as
> the one example that people discuss, where the image is likely Ali
> instead). Use filenames which don't specifically say that the image is
> of Mohammed.
> 3) Do more to specifically reference the images from the article,
> including justifying why the image appears in the article at all
> ("this is an example of the way mohammed is depicted in..."). Using
> the images for mere decoration is one thing, using them to illustrate
> specific facts and examples is another.
>
> Of these, I personally think #2 is the best first attempt, because it
> doesnt require us to change any article content. After that, #3 is a
> good idea because while we are modifying content, we are adding more
> information to the article.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth

If we edited the image (per 1), we'd hardly be representing the work
of art without bias and we wouldn't be representing the artwork
neutrally. This is entirely counter to what we are trying to do. There
are pictures in the world which depict Muhammad's face (we're not
synthesising these pictures). That is not our fault and it is not our
job to say that whether it is appropriate that these images exist or
not. We should represent these artworks without bias.

I definitely agree with 2). Wouldn't most/all Wikimedians agree with
accurately naming images?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)