[WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist

[rednblack at alum.mit.edu]

If this is going to become such an issue, might I propose that, to avoid debate
in the future, we switch to UseRealNames (e.g., your handle is
FirstnameLastname, or FMLastname)? This, it seems to me, is the only clear way
to avoid arguments over what is, and isn't, offensive.  I see no reason to
avoid this; we can facilitate the process by either converting existing
usernames, or we can just leave it up to people to redirect as they deem
appropriate.

Of course, nothing prevents some jerk from choosing first name "Screw" and
last name "YerMama", but this would then be a clear violation of policy, and
we would not need to have these lengthy debates. If ever the situation comes
up where the unfortunate John Crapper contributes to wikipedia, we can deal
with such minutia then.

Thoughts?

SaurabhAsthana (Graft)

------
"We cannot buy the Sharon argument that his attacks are a reaction to the
Palestinian violence. And I don't blame the Israelis if they also don't accept
our arguments, that our violence is a reaction to the Israeli violence."
--Ghassan Khatib, PA minister of labor

In message <BAY1-F185fdxB7l9OtR0000120d at hotmail.com>, "james duffy" said:
>>From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist
>>Date: 27 Jan 2003 23:48:38 -0800
>>
>>On lun, 2003-01-27 at 22:47, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:37:11PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> > >CG used a number of login names from the same IP, including this one.
>> > >All things considered, I'd say it's a huge improvement.
>> >
>> > Blasphemy is as offensive as lewdness.  He is still trying to
>> > deliberately provoke and offend people; hardly what I would consider a
>> > "collegial spirit of mutual respect".
>>
>>The problem with these names is the disruption caused by other
>>Wikipedians taking offense at them.
>>
>>"Cumguzzler" received acrid complaints within hours and generated pages
>>of screed *entirely from other people debating its lack of merits*
>>within a couple days of its first appearence, while "CrucifiedChrist"
>>has been used for almost two weeks *without a peep* from anyone until
>>today.
>>
>>In my book, that's a huge improvement. Now please stop feeding the
>>trolls; we've got an encyclopedia to work on.
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>><< signature.asc >>
>
>Actually, Brian, 'CrucifiedChrist' has caused offence; I received five 
>private emails about it so far (as well as the Wiki Mail stuff) after I 
>mentioned to someone that I thought the term unacceptable.
>
>However people feel 'embarrassed' complaining publicly about it because 
>taking offence at religious references might make them seem like far right 
>religious nutters. But the people who complained aren't fanatical religious 
>folk; two described themselves as non-religious, one a lapsed Roman 
>Catholic. It says something about public attitudes to religion (and the 
>damage done to religion by the religious right) that they felt uncomfortable 
>about complaining publicly and ended up sending me a message saying 'will 
>you say something?'
>
>Personally, as another non-religious person, I think CrucifiedChrist is FAR 
>MORE OFFENSIVE than Cumguzzler. The latter is merely a childish wordplay on 
>sex. CrucifiedChrist is a direct, deliberate mocking of the religious 
>beliefs of millions of web users and large numbers of people using Wiki. I 
>have been trying to get permission to use a set of pictures for Wiki, but 
>was turned down. One of the reasons was that  the person who has ownership 
>of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and 
>took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and 
>contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an 
>encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was on 
>the brink of giving. (And so we lost a set of photographs of world heads of 
>state and prime ministers.)
>
>So this is not a trivial argument, it is about the respect Wiki shows to ALL 
>its contributors and ALL its users. Would it be seen as equally trivial or a 
>'huge improvement' if Cumguzzler had changed his username to a term that 
>mocked jewish beliefs, agnostic beliefs, feminist beliefs, or that attacked 
>the culure and values of African-Americans, Hispanics, etc? NPOV should mean 
>equal respect for all. That includes christians. Either EVERY name, no 
>matter what the offence caused, is acceptable, or we draw a line and few 
>serious websites would turn a blind eye to a contributor who deliberately 
>set out to mock the beliefs of many fellow users. So again, I want to find 
>out what action Wiki proposes to take about a user who in their username 
>mocks the central tenet of beliefs of many people on Wiki. His action 
>remains unacceptable and needs to be dealt with.
>
>JT
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>