[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Excirial]

*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.*

I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while at
the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just
wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all perceived
personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he pleases,
or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules and
thoughts indiscriminate.

*No cartoon images of Olmert?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htmIt
appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff.
Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed? Why no
screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than
the "Draw mohammed day" image?*

WP:SOFIXIT <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT>. If those
received similar press coverage in reliable sources, and if they fit under
NFCC or another license, do go ahead and add them, as long as they meet BLP
and other respective guidelines. What is the point of complaining about
those - or about the image size on piss christ - if you are also discussion
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *that everyone can edit*?

Either way, i believe i am done discussing this issue with you. There is no
indication that this discussion will end up in anything else then a string
of personal attacks and accusations of hypocrisy, favor-ism and whatnot. If
you firmly believe that my only inclusion goal for those images is offending
people, then there is no way - nor reason - to convince you otherwise, nor
is there a reason to argue about the merits and risks of including these
images if my arguments will simply be filed under "Hypocrite defending
personal attacks, not worth considering".

~Excirial

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>