[WikiEN-l] Can we think about trying the "show" solution?
the.mangoe at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 23:21:12 UTC 2008
Let's be precise about this. The article sat around for several years
with nothing more than a (now-deleted) image of a particular mosque
associated with Muhammad. Then it picked up one of the calligraphy
roundels and a Persian miniature of the Miraj, both at the end of the
article. That latter image, which uses one of the Islamic conventions
for "depicting" Muhammad, has stayed with the article until the big
battle started, except for a brief period in May 2006 when it was
accidentally deleted as part of a reversion. It was restored within a
few weeks as part of another reversion.
The trouble began on August 21, 2006, when Hungry Hun, after a few
dozen edits, dropped a new image on the page that depicted Muhammad
outside of convention. This immediately set off an edit war and heated
discussion-- not because Muslims rose up and took offense, but because
a lot of non-Muslims were concerned about the inclusion. From that
point on there was a constant battle, with more offensive images added
(including a western engraving at one point) and the images moved
towards the top of the article.
I quit looking at history after June 2007 because by that time the
battle was well-established. However, it's quite clear from looking at
the early stages that wasn't a case of "we had all the images and the
iconoclasts swooped in". We had one image which was not offensive and
which stayed unchallenged indefinitely, and then someone stuck in one
which was immediately recognized as problematic. It rapidly changed
into a WP:POINTed battle over making the offensive image stick and
over adding more of the same.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
More information about the WikiEN-l