[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least kill the responsible person."
ben.louis.yates at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 18:59:52 UTC 2008
>We decided against spoiler templates
Correction: The people who cared about spoiler templates decided
against spoiler templates. The people who thought it was a nonissue
didn't participate. It would be hugely dysfunctional to act as though
that particular instance sets a binding precedent towards all future
instances, even ones that -- like this, and decidedly unlike spoiler
templates -- are important.
On Feb 8, 2008 9:35 AM, Chris Howie <cdhowie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 6:20 AM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> > Chris Howie schrieb:
> > > 1. We are not trying to pacify people, we are trying to write an
> > > encyclopedia. To that extent what people think of us is their
> > > problem.
> > I disagree, because I do care what people think of us.
> I care what people think of us to the extent that we are fulfilling
> our mission, to provide a neutral free content encyclopedia. If a
> group don't like some of that content because it goes against rules
> that exist only within that group, that's where I don't really care
> that much.
> > > 2. We do not censor ourselves. This includes opt-in/out mechanisms
> > > that are censorship bearing the form of a reasonable compromise.
> > > There is a reason we did not go this direction for spoiler templates,
> > > specifically because it would lead to doing exactly what we are
> > > discussing right now.
> > The reason we did not go for spoiler templates is because it would
> > lead to a reasonable compromise? It seems to me, that you actually
> > want Muslims to see an image of their prophet, which seems to be
> > a ridiculous effort.
> We decided against spoiler templates because it is editorializing
> content inappropriately. It is not our job to decide what our readers
> don't want to see; it is theirs and theirs alone.
> If Muslims do not want to see *depictions* of their prophet (that is
> what's forbidden to my understanding) I have nothing against that.
> However, I do not think it is Wikipedia's job to shield readers from
> content they may find inappropriate; that seems to be where we
> This whole deal seems to be "I don't like something so it's your job
> to make sure I don't see it." No. If you don't like something then
> it's *your* job.
> > > There are plenty of things I'm offended by on Wikipedia. But you know
> > > what? I've learned to stay away from them.
> > Why do you want the majority of Muslims to stay away from the Muhammad
> > article? What is the encyclopedic value of such an image? Are there
> > any authentic images of Muhammad?
> Honestly I don't care if they do or if they don't stay away. But it
> seems to me that if they're offended by depictions of their prophet
> that's the simplest solution. Other solutions may be disabling images
> I have no problem with them reading or editing such articles. I have
> a problem with them dictating what we do with those articles, which is
> essentially what's happening.
> The value of the images is to provide additional cultural context for
> the subject of the article. I do not know if any authentic images
> exist (for some definition of the word "authentic").
> > > I've learned that we're
> > > trying to do something useful here and that the presence of offensive
> > > material does not mean that someone is trying to offend me. If we
> > > start giving in to demands like this then we obviously do not care
> > > about writing a neutral encyclopedia, we do not care about topic
> > > coverage, and we sure as hell do not care if people walk all over us.
> > If we don't, we do indeed *deliberately* try to piss off religious
> > readers and editors. Islam is btw not the only religion
> > (see [[Aniconism in the Bahá'í Faith]]).
> Not caving in the face of demands like this is not deliberatly trying
> to piss people off. It's simply not caving.
> > I don't see how respecting religious believes without censoring
> > any content (I don't consider the need to click a link "censorship"),
> > would be derogatory to topic coverage.
> This all depends what kind of link we are referring to. Thus far the
> demand has been that we remove the images entirely, which is simply
> > To the contrary I am convinced,
> > that policies inviting people of different faith would result in
> > broader coverage and a more neutral encyclopedia. There is no way,
> > that religious topics would be as throughly covered by only atheistic
> > or agnostic editors.
> I agree with this insofar as such policies do not compromise the goal
> of the project.
> > > WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED. I know that policy follows actions, etc, but
> > > out of curiosity: is there any policy, guideline, or essay that
> > > supports what is being suggested here?
> > WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack
> > regardless of the manner in which it is done."
> Invalid. Explain how having artistic representations of Muhammad in
> the Muhammad article constitutes "insulting or disparaging an editor."
> People choosing to be offended doesn't mean that what they are
> offended by is a personal attack.
> > WP:PROFANITY "Including information about offensive material is part of
> > Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
> That seems to strengthen my case, not yours. By way of example, some
> people may find images of the human anatomy offensive, but they
> illustrate a topic.
> This policy would apply if there was content in the Muhammad article
> saying "Muhammad sucks" or similar. That is not the case here.
> Chris Howie
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
More information about the WikiEN-l