[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Prodego]

Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each
project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could
call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial
decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki
decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem
with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article
wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that
the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another
site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be
acceptable. It is outside the scope of  "the growth, development and
distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about.
Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be
using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances.

Prodego


On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM, <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact
> it
> > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider
> it a
> > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?*
> >
> > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an
> > encyclopedia.
>
>
> By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others
> managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a
> web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than
> embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all.
>
>
> > 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception.
> If
> > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on.
> > 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a
> > personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a
> > problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't
> > erase them from history.
>
>
> Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global
> blocking of all images?
>
>
> > 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who
> aren't
> > offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger
> group
> > outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not
> > forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on
> > specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be
> blocked.
>
>
> So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> that its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> problem in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are
> complaining about:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
>
> using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ
> images is similarly 'fair-used'
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg
>
> So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
> issue of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of
> the smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>