"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.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Excirial wrote: >> *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it >> is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a >> mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?* >> >> 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an >> encyclopedia. > > > By all means do so. But there is no reason to include the image. Others > managed to convey the controversy without doing so. In addition being a > web page you have the option to provide a link to the image rather than > embedding it. Its not as if the wikipage actually needs the image at all. > > >> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If >> we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. >> 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a >> personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a >> problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't >> erase them from history. > > > 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? > > >> 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't >> offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group >> outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not >> forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on >> specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked. > > > 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: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg > > using those images has been declared fair-use. Even The Piss Christ > images is similarly 'fair-used' > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg > > 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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
