Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Tarc]

Don't word-parse m'boy, it isn't your forté.

Is this the Monty Python Argument Clinic, now? One person tries to make a series of logical points and the other person just continually says "no it isn't,"

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

[Web Fred]

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

Whilst I agree with that sentiment totally, unfortunately in the brave new world of ours too many people are deliberately looking to be offended just so that they can complain. I think it's a case of the little, unimportant voice wanting to be heard.

[Somey]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

And if they "remove themselves from the situation," that's even better, because then we can offend them even more - this time without even having to listen to them complain!

Allowing people to express their opinions, giving a voice to minority groups, acting as if the term "consensus" is actually meaningful - those inconveniences can now just be swept away like the anachronistic bits of silliness they really are.

It's win-win!

[Tarc]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

A shame, I thought you were smarter than that.

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

[Fusion]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims

If you think that nobody has such a motivation, I venture to suggest that you are perhaps rather naive.

[Somey]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

I don't presume that Wikipedia users in general insist on it for that reason, though it does seem fairly clear that you insist on it for that reason.

Like I've already said, Wikipedia users in general probably insist on it for the same reason they insist on everything else - "We're anonymous, we're on the internet, we don't care who gets hurt, nobody can tell us what to do, we're not going to let anybody tell us what to do." In the process, they happily ignore the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a global operation (not just a US/UK operation), it's supposed to operate on the basis of "consensus," it's supposed to be a "charity," and so on. As usual, they're making a hypocritical mockery of their so-called "mission," which as it turns out once again, is simply to do whatever they want, no matter the consequences.

For good or ill, real charities don't start riots and armed revolutions, Mr. Tarc - not even by accident.

I'd ask "how can you not see this," but the fact is, you do see it, and you either don't care either, or you're getting some sort of big erection out of it and you don't want that to go away just yet. And if anything, your reasons for wanting to keep the images there are actually more honest and well-thought-out than the bogus rationale used by most WP users.

[Web Fred]

Perhaps if that person had actually made a logical argument, your point would be sound. All the anti-image proponents argument boils down to is "it offends" and "consider the Muslim sensibilities".

People don't have a right to be free of offense. They are free to remove themselves from situations where things or ideas are present that they may not like. Or they may stay and kindly shut the fuck up.

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

I can live with that.

And if they "remove themselves from the situation," that's even better, because then we can offend them even more - this time without even having to listen to them complain!

Damn right. How dare they be offended by proxy.

Allowing people to express their opinions, giving a voice to minority groups, acting as if the term "consensus" is actually meaningful - those inconveniences can now just be swept away like the anachronistic bits of silliness they really are.

Why is it automatically assumed that the minority 'voice' should take precedence over the majority voice? And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

It's win-win!

Why should letting the other side have a win be a bonus? I never realised, Somey, that you were so uncompetitive.

[Bottled_Spider]

I'd ask "how can you not see this," but the fact is, you do see it, and you either don't care either, or you're getting some sort of big erection out of it and you don't want that to go away just yet. And if anything, your reasons for wanting to keep the images there are actually more honest and well-thought-out than the bogus rationale used by most WP users.

Forget it, Somey. It's Wikipedia.

[Fusion]

Why is it automatically assumed that the minority 'voice' should take precedence over the majority voice?

I am unclear what majority we talk about here. But if say 10% have strong views one way, 1% the other way and 89% have no strong views, why should the 1% prevail? They will, of course, as they are in charge.

And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

Absurd! Of course they are a minority. There are far more Christians than Muslims.

[Web Fred]

And it's not as if the Muslims are that much of a minority, if indeed they are a minority at all!

Absurd! Of course they are a minority. There are far more Christians than Muslims.

Practising Christians compared to practising Muslims? It would be interesting to see the figures for the comparison.

This post has been edited by Web Fred: Thu 12th April 2012, 10:37am

[Tarc]

But no, you presume that people insist on keeping images in the article for the sole purpose that it offends Muslims, as if we were all a bunch of Koran-burning pastors from Florida.

I don't presume that Wikipedia users in general insist on it for that reason, though it does seem fairly clear that you insist on it for that reason.

Um, no, I have never been a proponent for that reason. Ever. I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma, and that an article is enhanced by images if they are relevant to the text.

By the way, I generally only read the first line of your responses. Save yourself some time and just stop there.

[Proabivouac]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma…

Which is why Wikipedianism must be crushed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that asking random Muslims – or even necessarily organized ones, what should be written about Muhammad is the answer – the result would be a ludicrously anti-naturalistic and decidedly uneducational mess. But that's exactly what Wikipedia does now under the dogma of open editing and crowdsourcing. Add asking random non-Muslims to the mix and you have the mess that is. It's not as if Wikipedia is free of Islamic proselytization, any more than it's free of anti-Islamic provocation. Both motives are in much greater supply than scholarly interest – a.k.a. curiosity – and the articles are more or less the result of their interplay. According to Wikipedia dogma, this adversarial system promotes high-quality output. Now we can see with our eyes that this isn't true.

[Somey]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma, and that an article is enhanced by images if they are relevant to the text.

Finally, cogent arguments! Bravo!

However, the second of those two is not really in dispute, and as for the first... I'm afraid that particular slippery-slope goes in two directions. Who gets to decide what is "religious or ideological dogma" and what is... what, fact? Conventional wisdom? Commonly-held opinion? And if we prohibit religious people from trying to influence WP with their "dogma" today, does it stop there, or do we start prohibiting people who hold other forms of belief, like, say, "all races are equal" or "slavery is bad" from trying to influence it too?

The fact is, Wikipedia deletes and removes stuff all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and to say it's "crippled" if it does this or that is like saying you can't take a quadriplegic's sunglasses away from him because it will inhibit his ability to play golf.



Also, I made an exception for Mr. Proabivouac's post above by approving it myself, rather than waiting for Selina to do it... ehh, mostly because I liked it.

[HRIP7]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that asking random Muslims – or even necessarily organized ones, what should be written about Muhammad is the answer – the result would be a ludicrously anti-naturalistic and decidedly uneducational mess. But that's exactly what Wikipedia does now under the dogma of open editing and crowdsourcing. Add asking random non-Muslims to the mix and you have the mess that is. It's not as if Wikipedia is free of Islamic proselytization, any more than it's free of anti-Islamic provocation. Both motives are in much greater supply than scholarly interest – a.k.a. curiosity – and the articles are more or less the result of their interplay. According to Wikipedia dogma, this adversarial system promotes high-quality output. Now we can see with our eyes that this isn't true.

Well said.

[dtobias]

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

People could try to follow the principle that was, as I recall, part of the governing rules of the FidoNet BBS network back in the '80s and '90s: "Thou shalt not unnecessarily give offence; and thou shalt not be too easily offended." (Or something like that.) The idea is that it's impolite to go out of your way to try to offend people, and you should avoid this, but it's also bad behavior to go out of your way to find and take offense at things.

[Web Fred]

That's some solid binary thinking there, Mr. Tarc! Since people don't have a right to be free of offense, then surely we simply must offend them, as surely no other course of action would be logical or appropriate.

People could try to follow the principle that was, as I recall, part of the governing rules of the FidoNet BBS network back in the '80s and '90s:

Ooh, a blast from the past.

250/151

[Tarc]

I believe that an encyclopedia is crippled if it defers to any religious or ideological dogma, and that an article is enhanced by images if they are relevant to the text.

Finally, cogent arguments!

I have been making that argument for years, not my fault that you're late to the game.

A shame too that the Kohsocracy just blitzed our burgeoning discussion over there, as the last point I made was really the heart of the matter. All you can do on this matter is talk talk talk, you lack the ability to actually do.

Pity.

[Emperor]

"blitzed our burgeoning discussion"? What does that mean?

[Tarc]

"blitzed our burgeoning discussion"? What does that mean?

zoloft tar-pitted (or whatever their equivalent is) our Muhammad discussion over at the other forum.

[Somey]

I have been making that argument for years, not my fault that you're late to the game.

Late to what game? You hadn't made those arguments here, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go through dozens of talk-page archives to help support a contrary position.

A shame too that the Kohsocracy just blitzed our burgeoning discussion over there, as the last point I made was really the heart of the matter. All you can do on this matter is talk talk talk, you lack the ability to actually do.

By "do," in italics no less, I assume you mean get on Wikipedia and convince large numbers of people that they're being short-sighted and fighting the wrong battle? Just because I don't want to doesn't mean I lack the ability, though I suppose it's pretty much academic at this point.

What you posted on the-forum-that-must-not-be-named was this (hopefully I'm not breaking any laws by posting this):

That the Western world shouldn't bow to a prehistoric religious precept is such a mind-bogglingly straight-forward notion that "I'm right, you're not" is really all that's needed, chief.

And Mr. Hersch replied the same way I might have, though less diplomatically:

This is just a variation on the familiar "nuke the towel-heads" rant. Muslims are the new Jews.

The fact is, the "Western world," which Wikipedia actually does not represent other than to reflect its worst elements, bows to "prehistoric" religious precepts all the time - at least when it suits people to do so. Christianity predates Islam, after all, and Judaism predates almost everything. But if you'd said "the Western world shouldn't bow to an Islamic religious precept," what you would have gained in accuracy you would have lost in sympathy.

I do agree that endlessly talking about this is pointless, but as long as I'm in a semi-authoritative position here, I don't feel that we can let this type of argument go unchallenged. (That's not to say I won't die in a car accident tomorrow.) All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it.