[WikiEN-l] Can we think about trying the "show" solution?

[Oldak Quill]

On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not
>  censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will
>  continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even
>  putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a
>  prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the
>  "depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can
>  exist without images.
>
>  If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often
>  interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly
>  POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted.
>  In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against
>  "fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some
>  justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular,
>  Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also
>  tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights,
>  but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject
>  Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm
>  not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I
>  simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant
>  case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.

You present these two principles as equal: no pictures and not
censored. There is a great difference between them and their moral
value. Wikipedia's sense of no censorship is limited to our project.
We have no belief that others (non-Wikipedians) should comply with
this rule outside Wikipedia or that they will be punished (or are
immoral) for not behaving like us.

The other principle is that no one--non-Muslims included--can see the
face of Muhammed. It is ridiculous absolutism to suggest that people
who aren't members of your group should comply with your rules (and
should be punished for breaking those rules). I am not a Muslim and I
have no moral, ethical or religious motivation to comply with a rule
that I see as wrong and arrogant.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)