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

<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

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

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.

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.

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.

Yup.

Of course.

Threats aren't part of the doing the right thing equation. They are however to be taken into consideration in doing the 'other' thing. I'm not making the threat myself - I'm simply saying that the 'other' thing raises the risk quotient.

The question I have is what is the right thing to do and what precedent does doing the right thing set?

Uh. I would have thought that doing the right thing set a good precedent. But color me naiive. Or too smart. OR something...

How big does a religion need to be before not displaying things that religion's adherents don't like is the right thing?

????????????? This isn't a rocket science issue, Lar.

I agree about the bad PR aspects of this but wonder what course would have avoided them.

Check what the Supreme Court did. (hello?)

How big does a religion need to be before not displaying things that religion's adherents don't like is the right thing?

????????????? This isn't a rocket science issue, Lar.

What I was driving at is what others have alluded to as well... that under "WP is not censored" the mere fact that someone takes offense at something is not sufficient reason to remove it, if there are good reasons for keeping it... and it doesn't matter if it's a few someones, or a lot of someones, theoretically. If we remove things because a large number of adherents of a very large organized religion petition to do so, should we also do so for a smaller number? how small? What if I get my DD from a degree mill, get recognised by the IRS as a minister and then claim that my flock (of 3) is offended by all images of cats? How is that different than 80,000 signatures on a petition? Only in degree, not kind.

That's an analysis in a vacuum of course, but IF the images are being used in a respectful and useful way to advance the mission of the project I'm not seeing "but I take offense" as a reason to remove them... balance that against the BLP (in some cases), against the desire to do the right thing (always a good idea), against the reasonable suggestion others made that if it's about equally easy either way, do the less offensive thing, and a host of other considerations.... this IS a rocket science issue in some ways.

I like what the boilerplate answer on OTRSwiki says (visible at this link if you have an ID: http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response:En-Muhammad but apparently copyrighted by the WMF (??) so I don't think it's postable... it has been sent to a lot of people though)

The precedent that I would hope to be established, and it would not apply to only religious questions, would be that constituencies that have well established interest that are impacted by Wikipedia's editorial policies would be welcomed to dialog, at arms length and as equals, with the people responsible for the policies (WMF). This would mean that the dialog would not be constrained only by WP's values and concerns, but out stakeholder's interest would also be fully considered as well.

Seems reasonable at first read. Is every single person on earth a stakeholder, do you think? You could construct such an argument, I suspect.

The precedent that I would hope to be established, and it would not apply to only religious questions, would be that constituencies that have well established interest that are impacted by Wikipedia's editorial policies would be welcomed to dialog, at arms length and as equals, with the people responsible for the policies (WMF). This would mean that the dialog would not be constrained only by WP's values and concerns, but out stakeholder's interest would also be fully considered as well.

Seems reasonable at first read. Is every single person on earth a stakeholder, do you think? You could construct such an argument, I suspect.

That is what the clause "well established interest" was meant to address. A 100,000 signature petition ought to more than establish that. Also the petitioners have a significant basis in a major world religion. On the other hand a semi-notable person with a bio article would also have a "well established interest." Maybe also a principal in a business that has an article. Although, probably not an individual who is a stranger to the topic with a strong opinion.

The important thing is that the dialog would not be completely concerned with internal WP concepts such as "WP is not censored" but that all parties could express their interests.

It is not easy, but it should be possible to find a path where certain sensitive issues, whether it is BLP concerns, religion, sexuality, are treated in such a way that even if offence cannot be avoided to those who are determined to be offended, that the reasonable person would accept that there was a decision process that was grounded in morality (F*** off ragheads, this is our encyclopedia does not really cut it for me).

Well said DB.

The idea that a lack of censorship = "we can write anything we want" has got to die on Wikipedia.

No newspaper (or anything) has that attitude.

But most newspapers (or anything) are not run by mostly kids and net-nannies.