Sorted

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

James Farrar
On 23/02/2008, Steve Summit <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>  > A lot of the problems with invoking NPOV here are that we're treating
>  > "our" viewpoint (the status quo ante bellum) as by definition neutral,
>  > and I'm not sold on that.
>
>
> Unquestionably.  "All information must be free" is a POV.

Actually, it's a Pillar.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

James Farrar
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/02/2008, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> >  Our project is not here to support or criticize a religion.
>  >  We do not remove images based on religious dogma.
>
>
> I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
>  viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
>  extremist viewpoints demanding their removal.

Since when was [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]] an extremist viewpoint?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Steve Summit
James Farrar wrote:
> On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
>> viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
>> extremist viewpoints demanding their removal.
>
> Since when was [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]] an extremist viewpoint?

In a complex world (such as, for example, the one in which we
live), almost any viewpoint, no matter how valid, can be taken
to extremes.

Consider: why is there no modern or hard-core pornographic
imagery at [[Pornography]]?  Why has there, at various times,
been no image at all at [[Autofellatio]]?  Why do derivatives of
the word "fuck" (which, as George Carlin has observed, is one of
the most versatile words in the English language) appear in only
a small percentage of Wikipedia articles?

I'm no fan of censorship, either, but there is no sharp line
between "censorship" and "being reasonable".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
 
In a message dated 2/24/2008 5:51:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

Are you  sure? Bloom and Blair say "Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare
in  Islamic art" (Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair. *Islamic Arts*.  London:
Phaidon, 1997 p. 202) >>


-----------------------------------------
Thank you for providing a source.  I believe we have an article  specifically
on the topic.  This source, if not already in that article,  could make an
addition, provided that it's considered reliable for the  topic.
 
Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Chris Howie
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  If we restrict ourselves to binary choice here (INCLUDE or DON'T
>  INCLUDE) then we will have one side or the other fairly miserable.

While I do agree with the spirit of your message, the content
disclaimer makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia can make you
"miserable."  I would argue that preventing people from being
miserable, while nice, is not our most important goal.

This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable"
for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free
content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then
I think we all know which one should win.

--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
I accidentally sent with the wrong email address, see quoted text.
The original message was canceled by myself.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)?
>  Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or
>  tables) won't load?  On second thought, whether they should load in
>  that case is debatable.
>
>
>
>  On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > Jimmy Wales schrieb:
>  >  > Andrew Gray wrote:
>  >  >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't
>  >  >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
>  >  >> interestingly creative...
>  >  >
>  >  > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
>  >  > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
>  >  > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
>  >  > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
>  >  It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
>  >  as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
>  >  All images stay per default visible.
>  >
>  >  The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
>  >  to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
>  >
>  >  Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
>  >  those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
>  >  can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
>  >  with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
>  >
>  >  Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
>  >  javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
>  >
>  >  If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
>  >  need to copy my
>  >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
>  >
>  >  After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
>  >  you should be able to see my compromise at
>  >
>  >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
>  >
>  >  To implement this compromise, we should think
>  >  about a more general approach, something like a
>  >  Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
>  >
>  >  br
>  >  --
>  >  Raphael
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  >  [hidden email]
>  >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Sincerely,
>  Thinboy00>  >  >> interestingly creative...
>  >  >
>  >  > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
>  >  > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
>  >  > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
>  >  > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
>  >  It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
>  >  as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
>  >  All images stay per default visible.
>  >
>  >  The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
>  >  to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
>  >
>  >  Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
>  >  those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
>  >  can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
>  >  with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
>  >
>  >  Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
>  >  javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
>  >
>  >  If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
>  >  need to copy my
>  >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
>  >
>  >  After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
>  >  you should be able to see my compromise at
>  >
>  >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
>  >
>  >  To implement this compromise, we should think
>  >  about a more general approach, something like a
>  >  Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
>  >
>  >  br
>  >  --
>  >  Raphael
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  >  [hidden email]
>  >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Sincerely,
>  Thinboy00
>



--
Sincerely,
T
>



--
Sincerely,
[[User:Thinboy00]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Ian Woollard
In reply to this post by Chris Howie
On 25/02/2008, Chris Howie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable"
>  for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free
>  content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then
>  I think we all know which one should win.

But isn't Chris Howie, aka "User:Crazycomputers", a member of 'Campus
Crusade for Christ' whose stated aim is:

"to win people to Christ, build them in their faith, and send them out
to win, build and send others."

and wouldn't that, as a potentially competing religious group make
you, by any chance, less willing to be nice to Islamic people anyway
and thus be more interested in gaming the wikipedia system to ensure
that end???

>  --
>  Chris Howie
>  http://www.chrishowie.com
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

^^^^ guess so

p.s. rhetorical question ;-)

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Alex G-3
In reply to this post by Raphael Wegmann-2
Nice idea.  I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images
are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this solution.

AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct?  We could also add a
Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jimmy Wales schrieb:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't
> >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
> >> interestingly creative...
> >
> > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
> > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
> > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
> > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
> >
>
> I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
> It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
> as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
> All images stay per default visible.
>
> The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
> to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
>
> Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
> those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
> can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
> with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
>
> Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
> javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
>
> If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
> need to copy my
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
>
> After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
> you should be able to see my compromise at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
>
> To implement this compromise, we should think
> about a more general approach, something like a
> Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
>
> br
> --
> Raphael
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the
very publishing of the images.  I don't think we should go so far as
to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic
request to make them "hidable."

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nice idea.  I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images
>  are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this solution.
>
>  AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct?  We could also add a
>  Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > Jimmy Wales schrieb:
>  > > Andrew Gray wrote:
>  > >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't
>  > >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
>  > >> interestingly creative...
>  > >
>  > > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
>  > > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
>  > > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
>  > > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
>  > >
>  >
>  > I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
>  > It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
>  > as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
>  > All images stay per default visible.
>  >
>  > The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
>  > to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
>  >
>  > Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
>  > those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
>  > can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
>  > with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
>  >
>  > Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
>  > javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
>  >
>  > If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
>  > need to copy my
>  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
>  >
>  > After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
>  > you should be able to see my compromise at
>  >
>  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
>  >
>  > To implement this compromise, we should think
>  > about a more general approach, something like a
>  > Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
>  >
>  > br
>  > --
>  > Raphael
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > WikiEN-l mailing list
>  > [hidden email]
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Sincerely,
[[User:Thinboy00]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Alex G-3
Include a link on the "show/hide" button the WP:NOT#CENSORED (or wherever
our policy on that is nowadays) should satisfy those who are offended by
publishing the images.  And if it doesn't...tough.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the
> very publishing of the images.  I don't think we should go so far as
> to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic
> request to make them "hidable."
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Nice idea.  I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if
> images
> >  are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
> solution.
> >
> >  AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct?  We could also
> add a
> >  Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > Jimmy Wales schrieb:
> >  > > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >  > >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or
> don't
> >  > >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
> >  > >> interestingly creative...
> >  > >
> >  > > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple
> binary
> >  > > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
> >  > > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come
> up
> >  > > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
> >  > It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
> >  > as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
> >  > All images stay per default visible.
> >  >
> >  > The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
> >  > to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
> >  >
> >  > Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
> >  > those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
> >  > can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
> >  > with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
> >  >
> >  > Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
> >  > javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
> >  >
> >  > If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
> >  > need to copy my
> >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
> >  >
> >  > After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
> >  > you should be able to see my compromise at
> >  >
> >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
> >  >
> >  > To implement this compromise, we should think
> >  > about a more general approach, something like a
> >  > Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
> >  >
> >  > br
> >  > --
> >  > Raphael
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >  > [hidden email]
> >  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >  >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  WikiEN-l mailing list
> >  [hidden email]
> >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> [[User:Thinboy00]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
How about multiple links, like one to the content disclaimer (it says
there may be "disturbing content" in giant bold letters) in addition
to your suggestion?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Include a link on the "show/hide" button the WP:NOT#CENSORED (or wherever
>  our policy on that is nowadays) should satisfy those who are offended by
>  publishing the images.  And if it doesn't...tough.
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list) <
>  [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  > The *real* problem though, is that some Muslims are offended by the
>  > very publishing of the images.  I don't think we should go so far as
>  > to remove them entirely, instead, we should satisfy the more realistic
>  > request to make them "hidable."
>  >
>  > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex G <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > > Nice idea.  I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if
>  > images
>  > >  are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
>  > solution.
>  > >
>  > >  AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct?  We could also
>  > add a
>  > >  Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]>
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > Jimmy Wales schrieb:
>  > >  > > Andrew Gray wrote:
>  > >  > >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or
>  > don't
>  > >  > >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
>  > >  > >> interestingly creative...
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple
>  > binary
>  > >  > > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions.  I suspect
>  > >  > > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come
>  > up
>  > >  > > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
>  > >  > It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
>  > >  > as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
>  > >  > All images stay per default visible.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
>  > >  > to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
>  > >  > those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
>  > >  > can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
>  > >  > with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
>  > >  > javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
>  > >  >
>  > >  > If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
>  > >  > need to copy my
>  > >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
>  > >  >
>  > >  > After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
>  > >  > you should be able to see my compromise at
>  > >  >
>  > >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
>  > >  >
>  > >  > To implement this compromise, we should think
>  > >  > about a more general approach, something like a
>  > >  > Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
>  > >  >
>  > >  > br
>  > >  > --
>  > >  > Raphael
>  > >  >
>  > >  > _______________________________________________
>  > >  > WikiEN-l mailing list
>  > >  > [hidden email]
>  > >  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  > >  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  > >  >
>  > >  _______________________________________________
>  > >  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  > >  [hidden email]
>  > >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  > >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Sincerely,
>  > [[User:Thinboy00]]
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > WikiEN-l mailing list
>  > [hidden email]
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Sincerely,
[[User:Thinboy00]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sorted

Chris Howie
In reply to this post by Ian Woollard
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25/02/2008, Chris Howie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >  This does not preclude any action to make Wikipedia "less miserable"
>  >  for the protesters, but if not offending people and building a free
>  >  content encyclopedia are actually at direct odds with one another then
>  >  I think we all know which one should win.
>
>  But isn't Chris Howie, aka "User:Crazycomputers", a member of 'Campus
>  Crusade for Christ' whose stated aim is:
>
>  "to win people to Christ, build them in their faith, and send them out
>  to win, build and send others."
>
>  and wouldn't that, as a potentially competing religious group make
>  you, by any chance, less willing to be nice to Islamic people anyway
>  and thus be more interested in gaming the wikipedia system to ensure
>  that end???

First, I really, really hope you are not being serious here.

Second (if you are being serious) I am not a member of that group.  Do
your research before attempting to harass me out of a discussion.

--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Raphael Wegmann-2
In reply to this post by Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
 > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00 <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >> Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)?
 >>  Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or
 >>  tables) won't load?  On second thought, whether they should load in
 >>  that case is debatable.
 >>
 >>

Alex G schrieb:
 > Nice idea.  I'm thinking we should try and go ahead with this...if images
 > are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
solution.
 >
 > AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct?  We could also
add a
 > Special:Prefs option to have the images default showing/default hiding.
 >

Yes, it would need a sitewide installation in monobook.js

Per default and without javascript all tables are expanded and
the images are visible.

 From what I read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images#new_compromise

I don't see much chance for it to get implemented though.

There are multiple objections:

1. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles
    I'm not sure, whether it is a disclaimer. And the opposition
    is chary on that, so I have to guess. Is it
    a) they don't want a permanent article message box.
       There are many articles with {{POV}} or {{disputed}}
       message boxes, some of them stay for years.
    b) they object the text in the message box.
       If anything can be regarded as a disclaimer, it is the part
       "Even though Wikipedia is not censored" as it indeed disclaims
       any censorship is involved at Wikipedia. OTOH the phrase
       "Wikipedia is not censored" has been written on the Muhammad
       talk pages probably hundreds of times, so I wonder why anyone
       would object that phrase to be in a message box on the article.
       Anyway, the text can be changed.

2. They are fearing a slippery slope.
    There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects
    certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with
    that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather
    than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists,
    Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can
    already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any
    worse, when there is a possibility to make
    [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?

br
--
Raphael

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Fred Bauder-2

> 2. They are fearing a slippery slope.
>     There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects
>     certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with
>     that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather
>     than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists,
>     Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can
>     already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any
>     worse, when there is a possibility to make
>     [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
>
> br
> --
> Raphael

Well, this is a lost cause. However, I continue to maintain that showing
an image of a person there is no authentic image of and which tens of
millions of people find offensive is a mistake we could avoid.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

geni
In reply to this post by Raphael Wegmann-2
On 27/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  2. They are fearing a slippery slope.
>     There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects
>     certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with
>     that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather
>     than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists,
>     Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can
>     already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any
>     worse, when there is a possibility to make
>     [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?

We can revert removals and blunt force edit waring will get them
nowhere. Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though
would make things harder.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Ian Woollard
On 29/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though
>  would make things harder.

What things are these?

It seems to me that:

a) the wikipedia is out of line with almost every other encyclopedia,
book, newspaper, and even references in the article, on Muhammad

b) the current position clearly isn't consensus (both within and
outside the wikipedia)

c) the situation is if anything getting worse

>  --
>
> geni

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list)
 
In a message dated 2/29/2008 8:52:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

Well,  this is a lost cause. However, I continue to maintain that showing
an image  of a person there is no authentic image of and which tens of
millions of  people find offensive is a mistake we could  avoid.>>



-----------------------
 
Supposes facts not in-evidence.  We've been here twenty times.
 
Will Johnson



**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

geni
In reply to this post by Ian Woollard
On 29/02/2008, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 29/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though
>  >  would make things harder.
>
>
> What things are these?
>
>  It seems to me that:
>
>  a) the wikipedia is out of line with almost every other encyclopedia,
>  book, newspaper, and even references in the article, on Muhammad

I've seen encyclopedias refer to islam as Muhammadanism.


>  b) the current position clearly isn't consensus (both within and
>  outside the wikipedia)

Close to consensus as you are going to get

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Ian Woollard
On 29/02/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Close to consensus as you are going to get

The consensus policy says:

"When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite
reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages,
in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which
consensus can agree upon."

This doesn't seem to be a neutral point of view. The whole point of
consensus is to agree that something is neutral. It's *extremely*
unclear that we have a neutral point of view in this article.

And if we don't have a neutral point of view then NOTCENSORED goes
completely out the window. We censor non neutral points of view all
the time.

>  --
>  geni
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: new compromise

Raphael Wegmann-2
In reply to this post by geni
geni schrieb:

> On 27/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  2. They are fearing a slippery slope.
>>     There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects
>>     certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with
>>     that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather
>>     than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists,
>>     Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can
>>     already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any
>>     worse, when there is a possibility to make
>>     [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
>
> We can revert removals and blunt force edit waring will get them
> nowhere. Giveing them another tool to forward their campaign though
> would make things harder.
>

But are they still "forwarding their campaign", when they change
their target from "remove those images" to "give us a possibility
to hide them easily"? Besides, why would it be harder to revert
the addition of a "collapse image message box" than reverting
image removals?

--
Raphael

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234