oldakquill at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 23:19:30 UTC 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 23/02/2008, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> > Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion.
> > We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
> I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
> viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
> extremist viewpoints demanding their removal. We can't just say that
> one side is evil, so should be ignored, and that the other is justice
> and light.
> If we're going to flaunt the extremist demands, we would be just as
> justified to remove them now.
> But, you know, guess what? We are capable of making decisions not
> driven by what the extremists *on either side of this debate* are
> demanding. Your constant, insistent, repetitive statement that
> everyone should just stop discussing it is not, in any way, helpful.
> It has been pointed out above that, for quite some time, the generally
> accepted approach was to have no illustrations. If we were having this
> debate *then*, when someone first insisted on their inclusion, would
> you be loudly arguing for them to be kept out on the grounds that we
> don't mess around with articles on religion-based grounds?
I don't think the term "extremist" applies to either side with any
accuracy, and the use of the term implies impotence of the position
without giving any good reasons why. The term just marginalises
anything which isn't some form of difficult half-way solution. I'm yet
to see a compromise which appeases both sides (i.e. the protestor's
notion that no one can see the Prophet's face and Wikipedia
community's wish to remain neutral, informative and educational), and
I doubt there will be one.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the WikiEN-l