[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Excirial]

*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?*

See the FAQ section on
Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad>,
which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.

*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:*

I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
on it. To quote myself: "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)". In other words, the image
more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.

*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.*
If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"   Besides this you
might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.

Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
one's heels in the soil".

~Excirial

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:01 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
>