[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has PR Problems

[Todd Allen]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Mark Nilrad <marknilrad at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think we need to look at the bad press that we sometimes get and
> evaluate it seriously: sometimes it is unfair or silly.  But when bad
> press comes because of something we actually did not do well, that we
> could think seriously about how to do better, then the right response is
> not to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what, we are popular?" but to
> respond thoughtfully.
>
> This is particularly true when issues of ethics and human dignity are at
> stake, as they often are in cases of BLP-related bad press.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> That's what I'm talking about when I say that keeping Virgin Killer.jpg will give Wikipedia a bad reputation. The issue about the images of Muhammed would, I think, be viewed as a very conservative view from a certain religion. However, we're talking about child porn here. Even though the case has of 99.9% chance of never making the courts, it'll still be a mark on Wikipedia's record.
>
> Noble Story
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

The one time an image is actually -necessary and discussed- in an
album article rather than a nonfree pretty for the infobox, and we
want to take it out? Not on your life. And I do imagine Amazon's legal
department had a good close look at that one before deciding it was
legal under American law. I'm also quite sure it would get OFFICE'd
before you could blink if Mike Godwin were to say "Folks, there's a
chance this could legally be considered child porn."

The image caused significant controversy (just as it has here). It
certainly serves an educational purpose in showing the image that
caused the shock and controversy. Someone reading the article doesn't
have to wonder "Why is there a section about why the album cover is
controversial?", as it is readily apparent.

How about we get rid of most of the REST of the album covers, which
are generally nonfree and unimportant to the article, and leave that
one alone?

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.