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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
