Mailing List Archive

Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Mark Williamson wrote:
> "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
> is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
> it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
> hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that
> article.
>

And you have identified all the subjects here?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29

I think not.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
*And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one
of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except
that you do.*

Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. Would you argue
that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the
external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
against including them? Man could equally argue that their broad
availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
pre-filtering topics and content on a
WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME>
basis
we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?

And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
there is no way to compromise.

*The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't
applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
- simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
after all.
*
And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim
connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the
"Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of
urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why
the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is
so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*

My intention here is to have a friendly, sensible argument that may or may
not reach some form of agreement (Its a mailing list, so consensus cannot
really be formed here). It is natural that one defends his own stance, but
trough friendly conversation at least some compromise should be reachable.

As for the image on "Piss Christ": I would argue that if something sparks
controversy, we should be detailing what the controversy is about. The
inclusion of the image gives the reader an impression as to whether
something was deemed offensive. Also, keep in mind that we are not filtering
content simply because it is deemed offensive - after all, who defines what
is offensive? Offensiveness inherently relies upon a judgment, and judgments
are inherently PoV. As i said again and again - we should thread lightly
with such images, and make sure that they are *only* in article's where a
reader should expect such an illustration. If Muhammed would be on the Islam
page the image should be removed. If Piss-Christ would be on a christianity
article, it should be removed.

As for the image size - i didn't exactly decide it should be that large, but
i agree there is no reason at all to size it up. I believe that it might
origionally have been upsized for layout reasons, so that the "reception"
section would be entirely next to it. Since it is preferable to allow the
selection of thumbnail sizes trough "My preferences" i simply shrunk the
image to its preferred size. But tell me - why didn't you simply do this
yourself when you made that observation? Thumb's are certainly preferable,
so i don't think that changing it would count as controversial.

~Excirial

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of
> selected
> > images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking
> of
> > all images?*
> >
> > See the FAQ section on
> > Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad>,
> > which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
> > permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing
> that
> > exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is
> quite
> > prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
> >
>
> That only works for people with accounts that have already been
> offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
> that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
> for offense, about zero.
>
>
>
> > *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says
> that
> > its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a
> problem
> > in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining
> about:*
> >
> > I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally
> commented
> > on it. To quote myself: "See this
> > discussion<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png
> >,
> > though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the
> article
> > talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx>. In essence the
> > image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not
> reliably
> > determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
> > privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
> > hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
> > more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
> > wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
>
>
> What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
> Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
> images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
> suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
> has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
> still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
> found to remove that image.
>
>
> > *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the
> issue
> > of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
> > smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
> > If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you
> make,
> > please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that
> such
> > comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
> > between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
>
> And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
> the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
> feeling. Except that you do.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png
>
> > Besides this you
> > might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx
> images,
> > so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
> > actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
>
>
> The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
>
>
> > Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you
> keep
> > it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the
> previous
> > one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
> > believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up
> a
> > flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm
> interested
> > to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
> > dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
> > other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more
> "Digging
> > one's heels in the soil".
> >
>
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
> display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
> cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
> offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
> are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
> image to illustrate an article?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Don't censor except when "you" do? That's one of the problems with
this thread, it seems everything's been made personal. I don't censor
anything. I was not involved in the debate about deleting the goatse
image, nor have I been much involved in the Muhammad debate, but I am
a firm believer in non-censorship on WP. It's not as if I saw the
goatse image and said "I need to find a reason for this to be
deleted"; I'd rather it be there than not.

-m



On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Excirial wrote:
>> *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
>> images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
>> all images?*
>>
>> See the FAQ section on
>> Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad>,
>> which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
>> permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
>> exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
>> prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
>>
>
> That only works for people with accounts that have already been
> offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
> that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
> for offense, about zero.
>
>
>
>> *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that
>> its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem
>> in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
>>
>> I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
>> on it. To quote myself: "See this
>> discussion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png>,
>> though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
>> talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx>. In essence the
>> image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
>> determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
>> privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
>> hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
>> more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
>> wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.
>
>
> What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
> Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
> images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
> suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
> has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
> still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
> found to remove that image.
>
>
>> *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue
>> of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
>> smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
>> If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
>> please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
>> comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
>> between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"
>
> And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
> the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
> feeling. Except that you do.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png
>
>> Besides this you
>> might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
>> so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
>> actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.
>
>
> The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.
>
>
>> Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
>> it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
>> one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
>> believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
>> flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
>> to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
>> dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
>> other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
>> one's heels in the soil".
>>
>
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
> display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
> cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
> offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
> are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
> image to illustrate an article?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
"You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and
YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or
against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the
Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have
rules, some of our pages may break those rules, but all that means is
they should be fixed so the rules are applied more consistently.

-m

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
>> is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
>> it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
>> hypocrisy as I am personally in favor of including that image in that
>> article.
>>
>
> And you have identified all the subjects here?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_%28male%29
>
> I think not.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Mark Williamson wrote:
> "You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and
> YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or
> against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the
> Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted. We have
> rules, some of our pages may break those rules, but all that means is
> they should be fixed so the rules are applied more consistently.
>

I'm not messing about with pronouns and butchering sense. But if it
makes one feel better *You* as in the hegemony that decided to justify
the goatse deletion for reasons, that if applied consistently would
dictate the deletion of most of the other porn images too.

Now go and be equally insistent in the application of rules being
applied to those images, as you are in your insistence that other
offensive non-porn images are kept.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Excirial wrote:
> *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one
> of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
> poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except
> that you do.*
>
> Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.

Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because
someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce
that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply
describe the image.


> Would you argue
> that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
> throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the
> external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
> against including them?


Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less
importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?


> Man could equally argue that their broad
> availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
> problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
> encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
> pre-filtering topics and content on a
> WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME>
> basis
> we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
> many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
> borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?



> And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
> serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
> me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
> implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
> But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
> personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
> discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
> there is no way to compromise.


Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
religious beliefs.



> *The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't
> applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
> Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
> those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
> - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
> it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
> change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
> after all.
> *
> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim
> connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the
> "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of
> urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why
> the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is
> so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*


No cartoon images of Olmert?

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htm

It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff.
Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
*Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
religious beliefs.*

I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while at
the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just
wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all perceived
personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he pleases,
or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules and
thoughts indiscriminate.

*No cartoon images of Olmert?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htmIt
appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff.
Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed? Why no
screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less importance than
the "Draw mohammed day" image?*

WP:SOFIXIT <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT>. If those
received similar press coverage in reliable sources, and if they fit under
NFCC or another license, do go ahead and add them, as long as they meet BLP
and other respective guidelines. What is the point of complaining about
those - or about the image size on piss christ - if you are also discussion
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *that everyone can edit*?

Either way, i believe i am done discussing this issue with you. There is no
indication that this discussion will end up in anything else then a string
of personal attacks and accusations of hypocrisy, favor-ism and whatnot. If
you firmly believe that my only inclusion goal for those images is offending
people, then there is no way - nor reason - to convince you otherwise, nor
is there a reason to argue about the merits and risks of including these
images if my arguments will simply be filed under "Hypocrite defending
personal attacks, not worth considering".

~Excirial

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
> > being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
> one
> > of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
> > poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling.
> Except
> > that you do.*
> >
> > Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.
>
> Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because
> someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce
> that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply
> describe the image.
>
>
> > Would you argue
> > that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious
> figures
> > throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the
> > external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
> > against including them?
>
>
> Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less
> importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?
>
>
> > Man could equally argue that their broad
> > availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
> > problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
> > encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
> > pre-filtering topics and content on a
> > WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME>
> > basis
> > we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense
> from
> > many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is
> the
> > borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
>
>
>
> > And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as
> they
> > serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend
> for
> > me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
> > implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal
> attacks?
> > But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
> > personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
> > discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
> > there is no way to compromise.
>
>
> Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
> taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
> continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
> religious beliefs.
>
>
>
> > *The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
> > applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
> aren't
> > applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
> > Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria?
> If
> > those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be
> taken
> > - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic -
> be
> > it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
> > change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
> > after all.
> > *
> > And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
> muslim
> > connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display
> the
> > "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar
> of
> > urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain
> why
> > the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it
> is
> > so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
>
>
> No cartoon images of Olmert?
>
>
> http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htm
>
> It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff.
> Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Just another general update/comment.

It seems that the template is back once again at the ace.wiki mainpage,
after another removal by a steward earlier. This time it is accompanied by a
"Wheel-warring" notice, with a request that removal of the template is
discussed prior to doing so. The reason for adding this additional template
is posted here<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Wheel_war_on_main_page>
.

Besides this, there are several other area's where the issue is currently
being discussed.
- This area<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A8dia:B%C3%A8k_peuhina_Islam>seems
to be a vote where people discuss the inclusion of the template on the
main page. Since Google cannot handle the language used i am not certain
though.
- This section on a talk
page<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Please_do_not_revert_the_main_page_state>discusses
the issue (In english). However, it seems to be a somewhat
circular discussion where group A says that the template shouldn't be placed
there for NPOV reasons, while the other group says that the addition of
those images on En.Wiki is not NPOV.
- The last discussion<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit:%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB#DELETE_IMAGES_INSULTING_PROPHET_MUHAMMAD_PBUH_FROM_WIKIPEDIA>seems
to be mainly inactive, as it contains only one or two posts detailing
whether or not the template should be there.

I believe that we are currently left with two issues:
A) May a wiki main page be used to suggest the boycott of another Wikimedia
project if there is on-wiki concensus on adding such a template?
B) If this isn't allowed, what should be done about it, since it would
appear that we currently have a wheel war back and forth. Based on the three
votes currently cast and the total size of the community, i would equally
say that we can be sure that disallowing it would override local consensus.

Note that B is an optional issue. If the template is allowed there is no
secondary concern.

~Excirial
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On 18 July 2010 10:10, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Excirial wrote:
>>  *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
>> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one
>> of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the
>> poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except
>> that you do.*
>>
>> Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out.
>
> Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because
> someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce
> that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply
> describe the image.
>
>
>> Would you argue
>> that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures
>> throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose?  Why is the
>> external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason
>> against including them?
>
>
> Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less
> importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image?
>
>
>> Man could equally argue that their broad
>> availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a
>> problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
>> encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
>> pre-filtering topics and content on a
>> WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME>
>> basis
>> we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from
>> many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the
>> borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"?
>
>
>
>> And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they
>> serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for
>> me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their
>> implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks?
>> But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images
>> personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can
>> discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value,
>> there is no way to compromise.
>
>
> Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
> taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
> continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
> religious beliefs.
>
>
>
>> *The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
>> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't
>> applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.*
>> Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If
>> those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken
>> - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be
>> it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would
>> change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action
>> after all.
>> *
>> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim
>> connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the
>> "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of
>> urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why
>> the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is
>> so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?*
>
>
> No cartoon images of Olmert?
>
> http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htm
>
> It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff.
> Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed?
>

You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already
taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you
can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you
have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise
the matter is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
User:Mimihitam made an introduction on Wikimania about the Acenese
Wikipedia (
http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule#Wikis_of_the_World ). I
remember he said that he doesn't speak Acenese, but the Indonesian
Wikipedia has an intensive contact with the Acenese Wikipedia, so I
think it is a good ideal to contact him for starting the dialog.

Greetings
Ting

Excirial wrote:
> *Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki users
> somewhere?*
>
> I have tried to determine if this was the case, but so far i see no real
> indication of this. I tried to check some recent contributions from the
> involved parties, but none seem to be no internal dialog (on-wiki that is).
> This is something to be expected though, as ACE is a relatively small wiki.
> The En.Wiki has many more editors, and even with so many people or
> centralized discussion don't attract to much attention.
>
> There are a few comments here and there, but if they are negotiations they
> aren't going very well. See:
> http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h&diff=prev&oldid=19366<%20http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h&diff=prev&oldid=19366>
> http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit%3A%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&action=historysubmit&diff=19364&oldid=9304
>
> I wonder what caused this though. On another talk page there is an older
> discussion on the subject which seems more reasonable (In English).
> http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_Islam
>
> ~Excirial
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>> Gerard Meijssen, 17/07/2010 12:01:
>>
>>> Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?
>>>
>> Yes: http://ace.wikipedia.org/?diff=19301
>>
>> http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Si_Gam_Ac%C3%A8h#Don.27t_attack_other_Wikipedias.21
>> Does somebody know if there's some discussion ongoing with ace.wiki
>> users somewhere?
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Excirial wrote:
> *Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
> taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
> continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
> religious beliefs.*
>
> I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while at
> the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just
> wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all perceived
> personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he pleases,
> or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules and
> thoughts indiscriminate.


Have you not worked out that you are being give a taste of your own dog
food. That you find it slightly unpleasant is not really surprising.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
desysoped, and the template removed.

Prodego


On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:41 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Excirial wrote:
> > *Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
> > taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
> > continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
> > religious beliefs.*
> >
> > I see the irony that someone speaks out against personal attacks, while
> at
> > the same time deeming that he himself has a right to make them. I just
> > wonder what the bigger irony is - someone speaking out against all
> perceived
> > personal attacks while *granting himself* an exemption to do as he
> pleases,
> > or someone speaking out against censorship while applying the same rules
> and
> > thoughts indiscriminate.
>
>
> Have you not worked out that you are being give a taste of your own dog
> food. That you find it slightly unpleasant is not really surprising.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
>
> You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already
> taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you
> can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you
> have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise
> the matter is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
>
>
> --
> geni

If something is wrong there is never consensus about it.

Fred



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Prodego wrote:
> As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
> desysoped, and the template removed.
>

Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
For those interested:

There is currently a centralized discussion on meta regarding this issue:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/ace.wikipedia_and_Prophet_Muhammad_images

I don't think that anyone has linked it here so far, but its its redundant i
apologize for wasting people's time.

~Excirial


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Prodego wrote:
>> As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
>> desysoped, and the template removed.
>>
>
> Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
>

Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the
blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were
desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Yes, that had been mentioned in Excirial's update though. In addition to
being for edit warring, they are also expected to be temporary.

Prodego


On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Prodego wrote:
> >> As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
> >> desysoped, and the template removed.
> >>
> >
> > Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
> >
>
> Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the
> blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were
> desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Prodego wrote:
> >> As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
> >> desysoped, and the template removed.
> >>
> >
> > Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
> >
>
> Prodego forgot to mention that that was after an edit war and the
> blocking of a few stewards and global sysops. *That's* why they were
> desysoped, not because they had a view conflicting with ours.
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>

To be fair the original "emergency" desysop of the project proposer and
probably most active user Si_Gam_Acèh was done for the edit warring on the
main page http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ôn_Keuë&action=history<http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB&action=history>
last
night.

There were no blocks of stewards or global sysops etc before that desysop.
I'm going to be honest when I say I think the other sysops responses were
more reactions to THAT desysop then anything else. I posted on the RfC right
after I saw that last night and was very worried it would only go downhill
after it :/. The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is
"proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the local community
and as many problems I see with the template I'm not sure this is being
handled well :(.

James
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong.

-Dan


On Jul 18, 2010, at 5:21 PM, James Alexander wrote:

> The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is
> "proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the local community
> and as many problems I see with the template I'm not sure this is being
> handled well :(.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups
> opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong.
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
pretend otherwise.


James Alexander
james.alexander@rochester.edu
jamesofur@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
Prodego wrote:
> Yes, that had been mentioned in Excirial's update though. In addition to
> being for edit warring, they are also expected to be temporary.
>

Aye boss that'll learn them, a week in the hole it be.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
> pretend otherwise.



James, you just made my cerebellum fuse.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Boycott in ace@wiki [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, that is exactly what consensus is :) I just don't we want to
> > pretend otherwise.
>
>
>
> James, you just made my cerebellum fuse.
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

*want us to pretend?
/me sighs and kicks iphone


James Alexander
james.alexander@rochester.edu
jamesofur@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3 4 5  View All