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

[James Farrar]

On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/02/2008, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I honestly don't see how you can compare these cases. One is an
> > > editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on
> > > to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
> >
> > A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it
> > wants.
>
> As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures

That does not fulfil the demand for removal of the images from Wikipedia.

>- and, more
> importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what
> we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we,
> er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly
> different-looking one! Win-win.

And we have thrown away our principles to appease religious zealots  -
who still won't be satisfied. Lose-Lose.

> > A situation where neither side gets any of what it wants cannot
> > accurately be described as a compromise.
>
> So you perceive the only adequate solution is to cave in to one side
> or the other? I would hope the project was willing to at least *aim*
> higher...

I perceive that attempting to appease the fundamentalists by a
so-called compromise solution will be the thin end of the wedge, and
there will be no chance of our resisting their further demands.
Appeasement is weakness - I would hope the project is strong enough to
stand up for the things in which it believes.