[WikiEN-l] opt-out and censorship (was: "I want to at least kill the responsible person.")

[michael west]

On 05/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2008 4:28 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My point is that in the general case, under for example, UK law, if
> > there are types of information that are contained in the wikipedia
> > that racial groups consider extremely obscene, which are impossible to
> > avoid in other than this way you indicate above, then this suggestion
> > amounts to racism. (The UK defines racism as anything that
> > intentionally or unintentionally has a significant negative effect on
> > a racial group; and while you may not be able to define Moslems as a
> > racial group, I expect you could find similar issues with actual
> > racial groups.)
> >
> > I think that blocking all the images on the wikipedia meets that
> > criteria, and hence can be defined (at least in the UK definition,
> > which I would suppose would be notable) as racist.
>
> IMO that definition of racism is way too broad.  This is, for example,
> not racism (or "religionism") at all.  What we are dealing with is a
> fundamental incompatibility between the goals of our project and the
> beliefs of a particular religious group.  I could form a religion that
> hates the word "taco" -- are we gonna cater to that too?
>
> Political correctness is a death trap.  Sanity is insanity, insanity
> is sanity.  Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...


there's afew article in wikipedia that question whether there is such a
thing as "race" based on DNA - so would gladly go along with ethnicity or
something. Definately a "racist" crime would have to be based on ones
ethnicity.