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?

[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.

[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 ™.

[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 ™.

That can sometimes happen.

[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: Thu 29th March 2012, 9:29am

[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).