[WikiEN-l] CSD T1

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hate that people keep bringing examples such as these up. There is a
> > HUGE difference between NPOV articles being inflammatory to religions
> > or people (such as [[Piss Christ]] and the cartoons thing), and
> > posting inflammatory statements on your userpage!
> >I can't even begin
> > to understand how people can compare putting "I think GWB is an
> > asshat" on your userpage with including one of the most notable
> > cartoons in history in the encyclopedia.
> >
>
>
> Hey are you know going to argue that user namespace shouldn't be inflamitory?
>
> How about [[User:Cyde/Weird pictures]] (seriously not safe for work)?

Is it so nuts to think that people shouldn't do try to do inflammatory
things, just to be inflammatory? Is it really ok to piss people off,
*just to piss people off*. I'm going to come out and say no, you
shouldn't be inflammatory just for it's own sake. You should be civil
to your fellow wikipedians. We have a policy on that, it's called
WP:CIVIL.

So yeah, having inflammatory webpages is against policy.

As a side note, User:Cyde really has behaved very badly lately (see
[[Template:User christian]]), and he justified defaming the crucifix
for fun by saying "Hey, since we piss muslims off by haveing the
mohammad picture, that must mean we have free license to behave like
jack-asses just for fun!"

Let's just say that, for me, I'm fine with invoking "evidence to the
contrary"-clause of WP:AGF.

> > Look, if an article is needlessly POV-style inflammatory, then
> > ofcourse that should be fixed. But if an article presents just the
> > facts in an NPOV fashion, then it's a good article, no matter how many
> > people it offends.
>
> Of course. Now think about how that effects our editor pool.
> >
> > So stop using the cartoons controversy to justify behaving like asses!
> > It's not the same thing!
> >
> > --Oskar
>
> I wasn't makeing a dirrect comparision. Just knocking out a poorly
> framed argument. The problem is that if you try to reframe the
> argument to get around the obvious problem it runs into a whole load
> of new ones.
>
> --
> geni

I don't really see these problems. Here's how I see it:

"Don't be dicks. Be civil. Don't insult people just for the hell of
it. And write good neutral articles, presenting the facts in a neutral
way."

Why is this so hard?

--Oskar