[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Excirial]

 *The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references
in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of
the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also
does not address the image in any way which would necessitate displaying it.
There is no discussion on the lighting, or anything else about the
photograph.*

The image in question, or rather the "piece of art" it depicts is the reason
that sparked the entire controversy around it. Ergo: Without that piece of
art there would have been no controversy, and thus no need at all for an
article so it would say it is quite relevant at least. That doesn't mean
that i am a fan of this image; Frankly, i believe that calling a glass of
pee with a plastic crucifix "art" is an insult to all the historical works
that have been considered art - it certainly doesn't belong into the
category of masterpieces classical painters made.
*
One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article does
not actually show the goatse image.*
See this discussion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png>,
though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx>. In essence the
image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)

*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend*
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record history, which means that
significant subjects are included. We are not here to cast a judgment on
subjects that are recorded, nor are we here to write or rewrite history
itself. Some aspects of this recording duty will be deemed unpleasant by
some people, such as this piece of art, the depictions of Muhammad, the
monkey-darwin in the evolution article and so on. However, keep the
historical perspective in mind; if everything does correctly Wikipedia will
still be here in 50, 100 years (And perhaps even much longer). After all
that time we will likely still have documentation that covers the outrage
Muhammed's cartoon page sparked; However, around that time no one would have
seen the original images without the images themselves the contextual
significance could be lost.

As said before, we should merely document relevant data, without casting a
personal judgment onto them. Not liking image or page XYZ is not a reason to
remove them, provided there is historical significance attached to them. As
said before - it we delete everything that could insult someone we would
have little content left. The better course of action is to handle such
content responsibly.

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM, <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
> display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the
> references in that article actually display the image and are far more
> informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The
> wikipedia article also does not address the image in any way which would
> necessitate displaying it. There is no discussion on the lighting, or
> anything else about the photograph.
>
> One is left wondering why it is that the article [[Goatse.cx]] article
> does not actually show the goatse image.
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> John Vandenberg wrote:
> >>> in the article about Jesus.
> >>>
> >>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
> >>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
> >>> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are
> >>> images of an object which is held in a university library or museum,
> >>> _because_they_are_important_.
> >>>
> >> Those don't appear to be the ones that are being complained about. Its
> >> the Baby Jesus Butt Plug style ones that they have issue with.
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>