Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[The Joy]

Oy, we heard you don't like images.

Guess what?

We put LOADS OF THEM in!

Because we can.™

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked. Stop being such a fuckwit.

Did anyone ever put forward my suggestion?

It would be a form of a disclaimer, which the Wikipedia did away with a long time ago. If something offends you, then fuck off and don't look at it.

Btw, Snape killed Dumbledore.

And Katniss marries Peeta.

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day. This ultra-libertarian "information must free" view you and other Wikimedians have does not work. It will not work. Wikipedia and its sister projects will suffer in time for this stance. I doubt Wikimedia's major donors will be pleased knowing that Wikipedia is maintained by a community that absolutely refused to reasonably compromise and cooperate. A simple, technical solution can satisfy both sides, yet you and others would fight to the (hopefully proverbial) death to prevent that. Wikipedia relies ultimately on readers, the majority of which do not subscribe to your views.

Are you prepared for an eternal wiki-war of attrition? The arguments for and against these images have gone on for centuries. In the end, this wiki-war and others like them will tear apart Wikipedia. The reading public and the donors will not approve. You will have nothing. All because no one was willing to compromise.

[Web Fred]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day.

So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs?

[Somey]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

I was under the impression that it was the only point they couldn't "debunk," especially when you consider that it's true. Are you now saying they can't? I would think that one look at the article in question would prove that isn't the case.

[Tarc]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day. This ultra-libertarian "information must free" view you and other Wikimedians have does not work. It will not work. Wikipedia and its sister projects will suffer in time for this stance.

Libertarian? No, they are far too simplistic for my tastes. Note that I am generally supportive of the aim to clean up Commons and such, the "if I search for a toothbrush, a woman with a toothbrush up her hoo-ha shouldn't pop up" argument. I love porn personally, but I don't think porn should be where one does not expect it to be.

However, that ideal has a limit, and the limit I draw is at allowances for religious fundamentalism.

[Tarc]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

I was under the impression that it was the only point they couldn't "debunk," especially when you consider that it's true. Are you now saying they can't? I would think that one look at the article in question would prove that isn't the case.

All of the images in the article relate to the text nearby, i.e. the Black Stone image appears next to a passage describing...wait for it...the Black Stone, and its significance to Muhammad's life.

When you ask "where?" the obvious question is "the Wikipedia". Perhaps if you a) disclosed your account(s) over there or b) If you still cling to this implausible "I never edited" backstory, perhaps you should, y'know, start.

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

[Detective]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

Somey, I am surprised that you still need a translation service after all this time. Allow me to help.

"I don't like the implications of the "because we can" argument, so I'm going to assert that it has been thoroughly debunked, although of course I know better."

Clearer?

[Proabivouac]

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

Shouldn't that be up with GlassBeadGame in this context? (Not that I actually believe the premise in either instance.)

[Tarc]

The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Where?

Somey, I am surprised that you still need a translation service after all this time. Allow me to help.

"I don't like the implications of the "because we can" argument, so I'm going to assert that it has been thoroughly debunked, although of course I know better."

Clearer?

[dtobias]

Amnesty International is criticizing Egypt for sentencing an actor to prison for "insulting Islam" in his films:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/e...insulting-islam

[The Joy]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day.

So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs?

I've become so jaded with the Wikipedia "community" that I always assume the worst with their decisions. Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter. On an individual level, I can understand and admire some Wikipedians. But as a group, it is a great beast.

I doubt my compromise would work. Fundamentalists on both sides would hate it. On one side, the images would be under "draconian disclaimers" and, on the other side, the images would still be there. You can't win.

Good gravy, I'm channeling GBG. I made myself sad.

[Sololol]

That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day.

So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs?

I've become so jaded with the Wikipedia "community" that I always assume the worst with their decisions. Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter. On an individual level, I can understand and admire some Wikipedians. But as a group, it is a great beast.

I doubt my compromise would work. Fundamentalists on both sides would hate it. On one side, the images would be under "draconian disclaimers" and, on the other side, the images would still be there. You can't win.

Good gravy, I'm channeling GBG. I made myself sad.

Don't think of it as a quagmire, think of it as a fly trap. Sometimes WP's contradictory rules crash perfectly head on into a social issue like this one. Think of all the obnoxious things these people would be doing if they weren't fighting for or against images of someone no one's seen in over a millennium. If it were up to me your compromise sounds perfectly sensible.

[Tarc]

Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter.

The only way the "screw you" option would have any credibility would be if there were images in the article that were intentionally derogatory, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten comics or the image from Dante's Inferno. None of the images are like that though, they are simply there to accompany the text of the article itself. Nothing more insidious or devious.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

[The Joy]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

I'm a racist?

[Emperor]

I'm channeling GBG.

I no longer need to enter the fray. The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists. Posting freely on today's WR is about as ostracized and isolated as you can get. So my work is done.

I'm a racist?

The intent of my posts all along has been for GBG to call The Joy a racist. I also really want a new Ghostbusters movie to be made, but I can't figure out how to get my posts to make that happen.

[Somey]

Caterwauling from a distance when you refuse to participate, openly or otherwise, rates you down with GlassBeadGame as far as I'm concerned.

This is why you've been losing every argument you attempt to engage in, Mr. Tarc. Characterizing basic criticisms as "caterwauling" rates you down with nearly every Jimbo-juicer who ever disgraced wikipedia.org from Day One, as far as I'm concerned. What you're saying essentially amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyahh," and nothing more. Just because the images stay in the article doesn't mean you win the argument.

And as for GBG, he clearly has the right idea, and you... well, don't.

One man's "refusal to participate" is another's refusal to feed the monster. I understand that it's a matter of perspective, but if you see it as a monster, then the moral and ethical choices are clear.

This post has been edited by Somey: Fri 27th April 2012, 7:25pm

[dtobias]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists.

What the fuck does any opinion regarding religious-icon imagery have to do with race?

[Somey]

What the fuck does any opinion regarding religious-icon imagery have to do with race?

Because Muslims are overwhelmingly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian?

In any event, "non-white."

Personally I don't think it's racist to point out that the stricture on religious imagery creates a problem that becomes increasingly disproportionate to the stricture's benefit (valid or otherwise) as society becomes more technology-driven, with communications technology in particular becoming more advanced and sophisticated. However, that problem exists on both sides of the issue. If people are going to simply ignore the religious beliefs (and strictures) of huge numbers of people simply because they don't want to, or because technology makes it "harder" for them, then at the very least they shouldn't be surprised to learn that those huge numbers of people still don't like them, despite their saying that it's "nothing personal" or "it is what it is." And that's a reaction to racism, not actual racism.

Needless to say, the mere fact that it can be seen as racism means that a lot of well-meaning (and yes, mostly white) people are being tarred with that particular brush, all because a small group of "free-culture" extremists think that to remove a few images from a Wikipedia article would be seen as "giving in," which would be the "worst thing in the world."

[dtobias]

I think all religion is supertitious nonsense, without regard to whether it's Islam being practiced by Arabs in the Middle East, or Christianity being practiced by white male fundamentalists in the U.S. Bible Belt.

[Text]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist. The intent of my posts was to ostracize and isolate the racists.

Glass probably doesn't get that most of this is Internet Racism, mostly harmless stuff made for the lolz, and not because some whites really think it's cool to insult Islam.