On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:51 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@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.
I had previously believed if a technical solution existed that allowed us to create a hatnote that said "To hide the images in the article which may be offensive to some Muslims, click [[here]]" that hid the images, one could round up a cabal and force it through.
The community response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_%28no_... convinced me it might simply be unpossible - but the AfD was closed to early to allow much discussion.
Auto-hidden with "Show" and "Only on a depictions" page have been discussed to death 1000X over and rejected - while I agree with Itaqallah and a few others that the current arrangement it at best "suboptimal", it's simply that case that too many people that censoring such an important article to present it from a non-neutral perspective is simply to intolerable to our collective morality as Wikipedians.
But uh - feel free to suggest it.
Cheers WilyD