Online petition asks Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad - International Herald Tribune Options

[Newsfeed]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Online petition asks Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad
International Herald Tribune, France -14 minutes ago
By Noam Cohen An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks ...

View the article

[LamontStormstar]

Wikipedia should not make deals with terrorists. Also they should not give into terrorism or the terrorists win.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia should not make deals with terrorists. Also they should not give into terrorism or the terrorists win.

Stop dragging terrorism into this. It makes you look like a moron. They are asking a corporation that publishes an encyclopedia to exercise editorial restraint in a manner that would respond to their values. Nothing more. You sound like a Wikipedian.

[Lar]

Wikipedia should not make deals with terrorists. Also they should not give into terrorism or the terrorists win.

Stop dragging terrorism into this. It makes you look like a moron. They are asking a corporation that publishes an encyclopedia to exercise editorial restraint in a manner that would respond to their values. Nothing more. You sound like a Wikipedian.

I agree this isn't at all about terrorism at the root (that there may be extremists threatening things has no relevance to peaceful petitioners), it's about honoring the wishes of (some/most/nearly all?) adherents of a particular organised religion.

The question I have is what is the right thing to do and what precedent does doing the right thing set? How big does a religion need to be before not displaying things that religion's adherents don't like is the right thing? I agree about the bad PR aspects of this but wonder what course would have avoided them.

[dogbiscuit]

The question I have is what is the right thing to do and what precedent does doing the right thing set? How big does a religion need to be before not displaying things that religion's adherents don't like is the right thing? I agree about the bad PR aspects of this but wonder what course would have avoided them.

Well, the issue to me is that in this particular instance it was not a battle worth fighting - the picture did not add any historical accuracy or other academic quality. It does not need to be there. However, this has now turned into a debate on principle and precedent, so all bets are off for a rational outcome.

To me, this is a typical Wikipedian drama (argh! I'm turning into Moulton). By failing to grasp that there is a possibility of doing something because it can be done, rather than for some notion of ithe Greater Good of NPOV or We Are Not Censored, essentially pride and loss of face, they will always fall into these minefields. What makes this look rally bad to me, is on the one hand Wikipedia is deliberately setting itself against a well known issue of a religion (whether you agree with it or not) yet in its own backyard, it cannot apply the same rigour. Wikia and Wikipedia are clearly intertwined and there is documentary evidence to back up the assertion, yet there, to protect against the embarrassment caused by Jimbo and his dubious business arrangements, the rigour fades away.

I say, have your picture of Muhammed but then allow the Wikia article to admit that there is an inappropriate relationship between Wikia and Wikipedia. Then we will see how principled the project really is.