[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Andre Engels]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> As to the best of my understanding
>>> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by
>>> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict
>>> to 5P.
>>
>> May not contradict.  That's something far different from being
>> completely determined by it.
>
> I disagree, although it depends on your definition of "may". My
> reading of "no rule may contradict" is that contradiction is
> unacceptable in which case you are indeed "completely determined by
> it".

We agree on the definition of "may", but we disagree on the definition
of "determined". When I said "completely determined by NPOV", I meant
that NPOV decides on exactly how the rule should look. That there
would be only one decision in each case covered by the rule that
conforms to NPOV. What you are talking about is not determination but
compliance. Every rule has to be compliant with NPOV - but some rules
could be different, or even completely opposite, without causing
serious problems with it.

>> Apparently accordingly to you and others > in this thread, not just a rule to not include Mohammed depiction but
>> any rule in Wikipedia whatsoever that is based on morality would go
>
> But this I agree with. Whether something is forbidden or not is a
> product of time and place. In the UK (where I live) it was once
> acceptable to burn people alive. In modern Britain that would get you
> into trouble. If I were to travel back in time I'm not sure I could
> argue that my position on witches was "neutral" and therefore they
> should put down that flaming torch. I think I would have to seek a
> different form of reasoning.

So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not
acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that
certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it
not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other
group that most of them belong to in doing so?

-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com