[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[geni]

On 18 July 2010 10:10,  <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?
>

You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already
taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you
can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you
have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise
the matter is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images


-- 
geni