Wed 6th February 2008, 4:16pm
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 5th February 2008, 12:40pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 5th February 2008, 10:57am)
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)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 5th February 2008, 12:18pm)
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.