[WikiEN-l] Can we think about trying the "show" solution?
ben.louis.yates at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 00:26:46 UTC 2008
The big problem is that the discussion on the list is happening
separately from the discussion on the wiki. It's become two different
communities with two different dynamics. List regulars need to start
arguing their points more on-wiki and less on-list, basically, if
anything's going to happen.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
> 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