Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Wikitaka]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

[Web Fred]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

Virgin Killer (T-H-L-K-D)?

[Tarc]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

[Web Fred]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

In any case they can always register and wait the 5 days. The RFC isn't over until April 19th.

One thing I do find surprising, especially with regard to the arguments for hat notes and collapsing what-nots, is that no-one has hit on the fact that the problem isn't with Moslems seeing the images, it's the fact that they are there and they exist, regardless of whether they can see them or not.

[Tarc]

For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.

What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?

It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.

The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.

In any case they can always register and wait the 5 days. The RFC isn't over until April 19th.

I think you have to have 10 edits as well, but those can just be 10 garbage adds and reverts to userspace, even. The bar is low to be allowed to edit semi-prot articles, but it keeps out the bulk of the clueless riff-raff.

One thing I do find surprising, especially with regard to the arguments for hat notes and collapsing what-nots, is that no-one has hit on the fact that the problem isn't with Moslems seeing the images, it's the fact that they are there and they exist, regardless of whether they can see them or not.

True, there will always be protests that the images exist in any for whatsoever. There's also Muslims whose opposition just registers on the scale at "strong dislike", but they won't protest others viewing them.

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

[Web Fred]

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

I haven't read through all of it as it's not a subject I find particularly interesting, but I wonder who many moslems are taking part, or is it all overly-politically correct liberals doing what they think moslems would want?

Tarc admonished

4.1) Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstention, 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Heheheheh (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[GlassBeadGame]

The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of one user smooths out discussion, though.

I won't even bother to look at the RfC. So long as the matter is addressed by Wikipedians, and only Wikipedians, nothing good or even interesting will come from it. Such insular inward-looking and narcissistic "conversations" are like overhearing a couple of valley girls talk about make-up. The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity. Too bad it came to nothing except to illustrate the inability of selfish white nerds to engage with anyone other than their own kind.

[Wikitaka]

What concerns me most is that so many users want Wikipedia to accommodate the needs and beliefs of Muslim readers. Wikipedia is not censored.

[Web Fred]

What concerns me most is that so many users want Wikipedia to accommodate the needs and beliefs of Muslim readers. Wikipedia is not censored.

Welcome to the political correctness epidemic of the 21st Century.

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

[Somey]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

To prove that the WMF's support for "multi-culturalism" isn't just a lot of hot air to disguise their hopelessly Western/Judeo-Christian biases?

Remember, Wikipedia "censors" things all the time. They just don't call it that when it's something they don't like.

[GlassBeadGame]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

[Proabivouac]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

The bigger opportunity is the one that's been there all along: to engage academic scholars of Islamic history. Wikipedia would be on firmer and more principled ground were it a high-quality academic resource being censored rather than a bathroom wall. If their aims are educational, why not start with the text?

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not happy if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

[GlassBeadGame]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

Excuse me but what does all this racist horseshit have to do with 500,000 people politely asking that their views be considered? Your hatred runs deep.

[Selina]

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 96 #After SOPA, Muhammed article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures? - Pure and simple, they're hypocrites.

[Tarc]

The 500,000 strong petition,with a "Wikimania" looming near in Egypt was a great opportunity.

A great opportunity for what?

For WMF to pursue dialog with Muslims leaders free of the whims you and other pissant Wikipedians.

A dialog about what, appeasing fanatics who are not if anyone is looking at images of their dear prophet?

Know what I find most amusing about bleeding-heart retards like you? Even the slightest hint of deference or respect for Christian values and institutions within the Western world brings you screaming to the skies about church-state separation, prattling about centuries of religion-based repression and so on. Yet you bend over backwards to make sure some random Muslim who would lop your infidel head off without blinking an eye is treated with kid gloves.

Excuse me but what does all this racist horseshit have to do with 500,000 people politely asking that their views be considered? Your hatred runs deep.

Assbeadgame artfully dodges with a non-sequitur! Its super-effective!


BTW, those "500,000" (probably more like 1,000 with a lot of time, throwaway e-maill addresses, and a botnet or two) were heard, and their request was denied.

[GlassBeadGame]

and their request was denied.

Yes, by a couple hundred Wikipedian who happened to show up for a rigged discussion that did not engage the petitioners or any Muslim leadership. Do please spew some more racism. It makes your case so well.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame:

[Selina]

Caling people racist in a discussion without any kind of proof in a discussion about religion is really not helpful, and a little low...

(IMG:http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5710/appearancecensored.png)

[Selina]

(Mod note: Moved the steadily rolling GBGvTarc train to here -Selina)

[Mister Die]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

[Tarc]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

That is a valid concern, but I believe the current set of images in the article has gone through quite a rigorous debate to justify their inclusion. If someone ever tried to insert say the bomb turban image, that'd never pass.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

[Web Fred]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing â„¢.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing â„¢.

That can sometimes happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

[Mister Die]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

Filling the "War" article with tons of color photos of graphic mutilations, bodies after being destroyed by grenades, dead babies, etc. will demonstrate that Wikipedia isn't censored (at least not for the stuff it doesn't mind being uncensored), but it'll also demonstrate that it's incapable of being a responsible encyclopedia and instead serves as a shock site.

It'd be like adding "Piss Christ" to the Jesus article.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

And I thought Jews hated Muslims. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

Wouldn't make any difference to that vociferous 1%. The fact that it's there is enough to piss 'em off.

And I thought Jews hated Muslims. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Only the ones with no money! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif)



(Mod note: Edited to remove the "pork" jokes from Text, Eric, Fred etc which are only flame-bait and distract from the _real_ meat of the discussion here -Selina)

(Fred note: How about spending less time censoring and more time posting about the direction you are supposed to be taking us? - Fred)

This post has been edited by Web Fred:

[Fusion]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

[Web Fred]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

[Tarc]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

[Web Fred]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

I'd put it closer to being total bollocks.

[Mister Die]

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

Some of Muhammad's contemporaries did actually describe what he looked like. A portrait based on one or more of these accounts is fine and indeed encyclopedic. Having more than like 2 photos (a second one should probably be "Islam-friendly," e.g. the ones where his face is veiled, since it'd demonstrate how Islamic culture depicted him) is probably unnecessary.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

[Fusion]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

[Web Fred]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

I am, in actual fact, a hamster. A very talented and long-lived Abyssinian.

PS: Where has the thread title disappeared to?
Selina? Have you been pressing buttons again?

Moderator's note: A temporary thread title has now been substituted for the original, until the original can be restored.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Fusion]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

[Web Fred]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

Very close to it yes, not that I've ever been known for having good morals. I'm far too much of a hedonist for that.

[Ottava]

I think this is similar to Wikipedia hosting a picture of "Amish" on that page - the Amish are morally opposed to being photographed. Wikipedia tends to do quite a lot to piss on other groups, mostly because the average Wikipedian is a white, European who has rich enough parents that they get to do nothing all day. They are spoiled and believe that everyone else is lesser than them. The whole thing about penises, trains, etc. all over Commons is just part of the system catering to the worst kinds of people who have nothing better to spend their time than pointless obsessions.