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

[Oldak Quill]

On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/2008, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
>
>  > I think a lot of people are losing sight of a very real issue. It is
>  > offensive to many to have to placate religious views they don't agree
>  > with.
>
>
> Conversely, it is deeply offensive to me that we are pandering to
>  people who feel "fuck 'em, free speech" is a valid standpoint to hold
>  in a project founded on *neutrality* and *editorial consensus* - we
>  are in danger of just placating the kneejerk political views of a
>  subset of our editors, I guess.

As far as I'm aware, we've had an image of Muhammad's face in our
article for many years. A desire to maintain the status quo (which is
based upon our NPOV and no censorship policy) and to stand by our
policy is not "fuck 'em, free speech". If issues had been raised and
we had introduced the image just to get under their skin, you may be
right. Ultimately, if someone thinks they would be offended by an
image of Muhammad's face, why would they take a look at an article
about Muhammad on a non-Muslim website without being careful?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)