[WikiEN-l] Sorted

[Andrew Gray]

On 23/02/2008, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

>  The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and
>  informative.  That we include them, regardless of whether they are  photographs,
>  paintings or drawings.  That they do not necessarily represent  the actual
>  truth of what a person looked like.
>
>  The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious
>  dogma, asking us to support that dogma.  They are, in general, only  here to
>  argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other  articles.

Aha, here's the problem. The ones you've quoted as "for" are the
people making rational points and trying to engage in discussion,
certainly not the extremist end of the argument.

Both sides have basically two groups of proponents, and you're
comparing the *rational* position for, with the *extremist* position
against.

The rational position[s] against the images are "these images aren't
really helpful or informative; the small benefit they provide in this
case is outweighed by the fact they are idiosyncratic, or by the fact
that they cause a lot of annoyance"

The extremist position for the images can basically be summed up as
"fuck the Muslims, we should include them because we can" - believe,
me there are some who are basically asserting that - and really
doesn't bother having any viewpoint on the encyclopedic merits (or
otherwise) of the images; or "we're not censored, we can include what
we damned well like regardless of what anyone thinks".


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk