Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander >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://

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, James Alexander 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 ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal 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 Alexand

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, 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 wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, wrote: > > Prodego wrote: > >> As another update to this sit

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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.wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> > 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 matt

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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, wrote: > Excirial wrote: > > *Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, > > taken to be a personal attack, whilst

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 ou

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 i

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 18 July 2010 10:10, 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 d

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 f

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*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,

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 cen

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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.

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

"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 page

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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-

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 im

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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, > which contains an easy

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

"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

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I don't think any community, even one from a majority Muslim nation, could reasonably consider following the doctrine of a particular Islamic sect with no other considerations "neutral". Anyone who things "neutral point of view" means "consider the ONE ACCEPTABLE POINT OF VIEW TO US AS INDIVIDUALS"

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :( On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego wrote: > There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a > neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes > to a different c

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

The community of each wiki can decide which illustrations are best for a certain article, true. Using foundation resources (banner, cpu, bandwidth) to campaign against other foundation projects should be avoided. Protest against decisions of WMF is one thing, lobbying against a whole WMF project i

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the things co

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> There is no problem > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article > wording Is that really so? ... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made editorial decision(s) On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego wrote: > Talking about the inclusion of dif

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*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, which contains an easy method to hide the images tro

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki decides

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 > ency

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > >> When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the >> specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him >> trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? >> >> Unless there is evidence to

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 07/17/2010 06:57 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy. Oh, and Jyllands-Posten wasn't? --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Seconded, particularly (2). The line I use with OTRS and other complainants about muhammad images is simply that; that we cannot favour one particular group, because we'd have to favour a second, and so on - the end result is removing everything anyone could ever find offensive. On Sat, Jul 17, 20

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> 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. It's the very core of the whole this issue. That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P with all due respect to all and ev

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*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. 2) We do not cater

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> This turns out not to be the case. In practice, anything that is even > *purported* to be an image of Mohammed is condemned. > > (And, as the article on the history of such images notes - this is a > modern POV of one particularly noisy and violent group rather than a > constant over the history

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different? 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? Piss Christ was an artistic-political controversy

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*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

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Actually, to clarify; it's a particular Islamic sect which has a problem. A lot of the smaller groups really don't care. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > > > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > > spec

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him > trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? > > Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm incli

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

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 wit

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

David Gerard wrote: > On 17 July 2010 12:40, wrote: >> John Vandenberg wrote: >>> in the article about Jesus. > >>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much >>> free time on their hands. The image

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 17 July 2010 14:13, Mark Williamson wrote: > I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art > work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the > goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to > not allow it to be used outside of t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about including an image of an art work in the article about it. I would not be against the use of the goatse.cx image in that article, although we'd have to make sure to not allow it to be used outside of that page (to prevent vandalism). On Sat, Jul 17, 2010

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 17 July 2010 12:40, wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: >> in the article about Jesus. >> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much >> free time on their hands.  The images of Muhammad that we use are

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the references in that article actually display the image and are far more informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The wikipedia article also do

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Have you seen [[Piss Christ]]? How is that different? On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: >> in the article about Jesus. >> >> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles >> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I was raised areligious and I see a clear difference there. On the one hand, you're talking about portraying a religious figure on a sex toy; on the other hand you're just talking about portraying a religious figure. Just on the grounds of being offensive, I don't think either should be excluded fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

John Vandenberg wrote: > in the article about Jesus. > > If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles > relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much > free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are > images of an object which is held

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM, wrote: > > ... I know an artist friend of > > mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting > > nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to: > > > > http://commons.w

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Excirial wrote: >> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* >> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic >> images >> which display any god or prophet? >> > > Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you > depicted images of Shiva

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Excirial wrote: > *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images > which display any god or prophet? > Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Yes, there are alternatives to religious beliefs. In this case the alternative is the view that offensive bogus images should be displayed. Saying that is fine; doing it another.* *Wikipedia:Reliable sources IS policy. There are no authentic images of Muhammad. Including one outside the realm of

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, >> that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any >> circumstances. >> >> They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They >> could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >>... >> >> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big >> problem, >> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're >> doing >> something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough".

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant. > > There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I > believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them. > > --vvv > There is a difference between using an ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ?* I have no idea to be honest, as i only just noticed it myself. The steward in question (Laaknor) is also subscribed to this mailing list and present in this specific thread, so i think we can await his answer on this. Based upon his con

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* > As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic > images > which display any god or prophet? Yes, there are photographs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and of Bahá'u'lláh a prophet of the Bahá'í Faith. http://en.wikipedia.or

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant. There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them. --vvv ___ founda

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Hoi, Did the steward inform them that he did this and why ? The notion that what somebody does who holds a title like steward is not that firm in our community. The recent fracas about problematic images at Commons is a clear indication of that. Thanks, GerardM On 17 July 2010 11:56, Exciri

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

And a reply to no one in specific: It seems that Si Gam Acèhhas reverted the steward removal of the template from the ACE mainpage, causing it to be displayed again. ~Excirial ___ foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.* As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic images which display any god or prophet? *Second: You know millions of Muslims find images of Mohammad extremely offensive. * Christians (And then i am mostly talking abo

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I don't know Krishna case, nor Western Church, but according to the Tradition (or the Holy Tradition as the church says), thus not accoding to secular people, - St. Paul, his portrait is described by Eusebius, who records a 2nd century account in "The History of the Church", and at least Eastern O

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I think I would accept that some language wikis decide, by consensus, > that they will not show illustrations of Mohammed under any > circumstances. > > They should not ask for a boycott of another language, though. They > could have a protest page with a list of users who want to sign up to > it.

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

+1. While I think there are many good arguments against inclusion of images of Muhammad in Wikipedia, the "false" or "unreliable" does not seem to be such an argument. We have plenty of images of Jesus and lots of other famous people of whom we have no photographic or _primary_ artistic sources...

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >... > > That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, > not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing > something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tough". And > you don't

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely > personal opinions. If they said "oh btw, the law in our nation creates > problems with images of Muhammad" then cool, fine, it's justified. > Arguing > that images should be deleted not because of the law but because they

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Andre Engels > wrote: > >> So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not >> acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that >> certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it >> not acceptable that they use t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> > So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not > acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that > certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it > not acceptable that they use the morality of the nationality or other > group that most of

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim >> culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make >> not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of >> violence; there's certainly imagery

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Because I felt like it? I understand this may be a disturbing issue for some, but that seemed unnecessarily hostile. -m On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: >> Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere exist

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 22:57, Bod Notbod wrote: > The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim > culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make > not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of > violence; there's certainly imagery in those realms

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely > personal opinions. The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim culture is no more a "personal opinion" than a decision we would make not to show,

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > So, to get back to the original question: Is it or is it not > acceptable to you that the community of one Wikipedia decides that > certain pictures will not be shown on their wiki? And is it or is it > not acceptable that they use the morali

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of > the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of > the mainpage of a Wikipedia. And the reason for telling this to me is what? -- André Engels, an

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of the mainpage of a Wikipedia. -m skype: node.ue On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: >

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

Except the problem is that at no point do they mention law; it's entirely personal opinions. If they said "oh btw, the law in our nation creates problems with images of Muhammad" then cool, fine, it's justified. Arguing that images should be deleted not because of the law but because they find it p

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > >>> As to the best of my understanding >>> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by >>> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict >>> t

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote: >> As to the best of my understanding >> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by >> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict >> to 5P. > > May not contradict.  That's something far differe

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw&action=history Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the >> Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. >> It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture >> might be willing to kill someone for. > > > Th

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > > As to the best of my understanding > Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by > WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may con

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 19:14, Bod Notbod wrote: > Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the > Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. > It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture > might be willing to kill someone for. They do, however, have

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the > Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. Well in that meaning it's true to the extent how well WP:5P reflects "Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe". On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > O

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades > into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant > advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia > sites. They had it up on the ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Andre Engels

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per >> country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. > > I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to > context of  Excirial wording): > > ... no

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 19:08, Andre Engels wrote: > Sod? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of > having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the > Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: > >> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main >> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a >> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 18:25, David Gerard wrote: > No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per > country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point > of view is not local point of view. The problem is not the country in this case but the ethnic group. It is u

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

What definition of "neutral" are people using when they say the boycott template violates NPOV? I'm struggling with this. Where the WP servers are located, clearly it is acceptable to show pictures of Mohammed both legally and culturally. Amongst (some of, most of?) the speakers of the language

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 18:51, Lars Åge Kamfjord wrote: >  I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion > among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia; > advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the > best way of doing it... I've also inf

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per > country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to context of Excirial wording): ... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no Wikipedia

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia; advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the best way of doing it... I've also informed them on how the bad image list works, so that (

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: > If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main > complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a > rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force > it on other wikipedia's. Ever

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

*"if the majority feels it has to follow Islamitic law, would we say they can't add in their local rules "pictures of Mohammed are not allowed"* If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a rule, as

  1   2   >