[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Mark Williamson]

Don't censor except when "you" do? That's one of the problems with
this thread, it seems everything's been made personal. I don't censor
anything. I was not involved in the debate about deleting the goatse
image, nor have I been much involved in the Muhammad debate, but I am
a firm believer in non-censorship on WP. It's not as if I saw the
goatse image and said "I need to find a reason for this to be
deleted"; I'd rather it be there than not.

-m



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Excirial wrote:
>> *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.
>>
>
> That only works for people with accounts that have already been
> offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
> that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
> for offense, about zero.
>
>
>
>> *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.
>
>
> What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
> Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
> images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
> suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
> has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
> still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
> found to remove that image.
>
>
>> *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"
>
> And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
> the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
> feeling. Except that you do.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png
>
>> 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.
>
>
> The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
>
>
>> 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".
>>
>
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
> display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
> cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
> offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
> are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
> image to illustrate an article?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>