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, <[email protected]> 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 > [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
