[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

Excirial wrote:
>  *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.*
> 
> Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.

Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because 
someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce 
that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply 
describe the image.


> Would you argue
> that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
> throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose?  Why is the
> external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
> against including them? 


Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less 
importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?


> Man could equally argue that their broad
> availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
> problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
> encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
> pre-filtering topics and content on a
> WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME>
> basis
> we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
> many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
> borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?



> And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
> serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
> me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
> implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
> But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
> personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
> discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
> there is no way to compromise.


Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, 
taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the 
continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others 
religious beliefs.



> *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.*
> Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
> those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
> - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
> it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
> change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
> after all.
> *
> 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?*


No cartoon images of Olmert?

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htm

It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. 
Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?