[WikiEN-l] A call for moderation

[Ian Woollard]

On 17/02/2008, Screamer <scream at datascreamer.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone stated in this thread that we were misrepresenting
> cultural of religious beliefs.

I believe that we are, by over-emphasis.

> I believe the subject at hand is about making the article more palatable
> on such a sensitive subject where the exposure of a picture offends an
> entire people.

I don't think so, I think this is a policy question; and DEPENDING on
what policy gets decided it can be decided what actions to take.

Some *different* policies could be:

1. we don't censor articles at all

2. we don't censor the *wikipedia* (but we can move things around to
minimise offense- e.g. a principle of least surprise

3. we do censor the wikipedia

4. we decide a context for the wikipedia (e.g. it's a purely western
encyclopedia), and tune it to follow those mores (i.e. not censored
but in accordance with emphasis expected from a Western encyclopedia)

5. we decide that the Muhammad article is currently out of line with
the majority of sources on Muhammad, and fix it (in other words policy
is fine, but the article is an inaccurate precis).

6. current policy is perfect, current Muhammad article is perfect,
they're just a bunch of whingers.

This is not intended to be a complete or accurate list; it's an
example, feel free to discuss/propose policies.

> ./scream

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.