I don't think Wikipedia's "not censored" policy is limited to our project; I think it represents the dominance of those who view Wikipedia as a conduit for disseminating material potentially subject to censorship. By your own words you are setting Wikipedia against the "arrogance" of (some forms of) Islam, so once again I have to say, "I see no neutrality here."
I would also point out that the principle isn't really "not censored". It seems to me that we should be seeking a solution which retains the images but isn't so "in your face" about their presence. Actual censorship doesn't seem to be on the table.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l