<- Alt General discussion | Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox | Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam ->
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Has anyone noticed how people so keen on Wikipedia NOT BEING CENSORED, and in ignoring people's "sensitivities", can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken? I'd like to point out the plain hypocrisy there. I think that many of them care less about NOTCENSORED than their own likes and dislikes - the rest is often little more than ammunition given to them by the project. It often seems to me as if everyone armed with a proactive bias are given a billion bullet bonus the moment they sign up. Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"Has anyone noticed how people so keen on...ignoring people's "sensitivities".."- Who is keen on (i.e. needlessly in favor of) ignoring people's sensitivities? It is not intentional. If "sensitivities" bar the flow of information then only it can be ignored.
"can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken?"- If you are referring to me, then I must say, I'm not "sensitive" about the contravention of WP:AGF. I'm just suggesting you a better approach, that's all. Brendon is here 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad"
- again,
argumentum ad populum fallacy. So what, if muslims are offended.
If that is to be considered then, it is also a clear cut fact that a significant number of non-Muslims (myself included) do wish to see an image of Mohammad in the article Muhammad and will consider censorship based on religious precepts or specific POV to be highly offensive.
1. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
2. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.
"Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership"then you annex,
"while keeping their value intact."- You are wrong again, Matt. You don't even realise that the two criteria are contesting criteria and cannot coexist in some cases (e.g. where offensiveness of a reliable content is cited as a sole argument for the removal of that content).
Belorn beautifully pointed this out by saying, "No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content!"
New addition: I see you also based your whole point here on the assumption that religious injunctions (I'm not sure if there are any, but for argument's sake) that forbid images to be displayed online, apply to Wikipedia. So, your assumption is in direct contradiction to WP:UNCENSORED. This is how you compel me to partially reproduce a copy of wikipedia policies verbatim. I'm not to blame here if start doing that. Brendon is here 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all."-
1. Even if some images are offensive in nature (which I don't think matters in an encyclopaedia any more than the font-name) it's a logical fallacy (namely, Camel's nose and/or Foot in the door) to claim that it makes it impossible for any sensitive man to read the article at all. Come on, no healthy person is going to get an heart-attack or something (only then it will make it truly impossible).
2. I think User talk:New questions above has expressed it finely. No need for me to repeat it again. (see proposal above) Brendon is here 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides, the claims of offense aren't floating around because pictures are "decorative"(a quality which is at least essential to an article's quality in your own opinion), are they? The truth is the opposite, you're only devaluing the contributions of the images by derogatorily labeling them as "merely decorative", because of the claims of offense (or is it because you are offended? Just curious).
And BTW, decorating an article with relevant images is not a "mere" (as in trifling) act, finding appropriate images requires just as much diligence and hard-work as anything else we do in wikipedia.
My point is muslim people still draw pictures of Muhammad. And if you want an exact date or more price time-length, then I think you should talk to User:Johnbod. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional"- I can sense some abhorrence and undue acerbity in this apparently illogical and overly-simplistic comment.
"a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate"
- It's your opinion. Do you really believe (let alone proving it) that a
depiction of Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel (From the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani) or a depiction of Muhammad where he is prohibiting intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage is not relevant in Muhammad article?
Well, guess what, I don't hold your view nor I am impressed by your weak attempt to justify censorship. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
@Griswaldo,
I don't think that all our policies are subjective. Most of acts of vandalism are treated delicately and I'd say there is not much room for subjectivity there. But, even if they are partially subjective, we have a scope to build up consensus for or against that. That's how Wikipedia works.But the bigger point is why are we talking about subjectivity? Yes some people are offended that's a fact. But so what? Offensiveness is not a relevant reason in favor of deletion of content. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
“"Offensiveness" ... has nothing to do with subjectivity”? One thing may be offensive to you though I do not find it unsavory, that's subjective. I'm quite certain that you're saying something else.
Oh I see, “"It's subjective" is nonsensical”
- No that's not nonsensical and this RfC is itself the proof of it. Now you may say that "subjectivity" alone cannot be cited as a credible argument for or against deletion of pertinent content and I concur with that much. But again, who is the one actually citing "subjective" issues alone as credible argument for or against censorship? Who is doing that? I mean, is it me?
Brendon is
here
19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. They are based on mostly experience and opinions (so is science and thus consensus of sane people matters in science). Who has disagreed with that? For the record, something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts. And I am even saying that just because Policies may be modified/ignored, it doesn't mean they need to be modified/ignored. Why are we talking about subjectivity? Can we just stop talking about "subjectivity"?
The demand of censorship, based on claims of offense, is subjective but that's not only reason why we should not work upon it, another important reason is it stifles the flow of information and unnecessarily curtails editorial freedom which in turn works to the detriment of the mission of any encyclopaedia.
"I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand." cheers! Brendon is here 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
<- Alt General discussion | Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox | Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam ->
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Has anyone noticed how people so keen on Wikipedia NOT BEING CENSORED, and in ignoring people's "sensitivities", can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken? I'd like to point out the plain hypocrisy there. I think that many of them care less about NOTCENSORED than their own likes and dislikes - the rest is often little more than ammunition given to them by the project. It often seems to me as if everyone armed with a proactive bias are given a billion bullet bonus the moment they sign up. Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"Has anyone noticed how people so keen on...ignoring people's "sensitivities".."- Who is keen on (i.e. needlessly in favor of) ignoring people's sensitivities? It is not intentional. If "sensitivities" bar the flow of information then only it can be ignored.
"can be particularly sensitive over 'AGF' being broken?"- If you are referring to me, then I must say, I'm not "sensitive" about the contravention of WP:AGF. I'm just suggesting you a better approach, that's all. Brendon is here 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"it is a clear cut fact that a significant number of Muslims do not wish to see an image of Mohammad"
- again,
argumentum ad populum fallacy. So what, if muslims are offended.
If that is to be considered then, it is also a clear cut fact that a significant number of non-Muslims (myself included) do wish to see an image of Mohammad in the article Muhammad and will consider censorship based on religious precepts or specific POV to be highly offensive.
1. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
2. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.
"Wikipedia pages are intended to be viewed by the broadest possible readership"then you annex,
"while keeping their value intact."- You are wrong again, Matt. You don't even realise that the two criteria are contesting criteria and cannot coexist in some cases (e.g. where offensiveness of a reliable content is cited as a sole argument for the removal of that content).
Belorn beautifully pointed this out by saying, "No, this is not the goal. Had this been the goal, Wikipedia would encourage soapboxing, Scandal mongering, Opinion pieces, social networking, and newspaper articles as all those would increase the number of readers. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT out to get as much web "hits" as possible, but rather to be a encyclopedia! I rather have a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project than a non-offensive, image-less and perfect work safe site with all white empty pages with no text, no image, or content!"
New addition: I see you also based your whole point here on the assumption that religious injunctions (I'm not sure if there are any, but for argument's sake) that forbid images to be displayed online, apply to Wikipedia. So, your assumption is in direct contradiction to WP:UNCENSORED. This is how you compel me to partially reproduce a copy of wikipedia policies verbatim. I'm not to blame here if start doing that. Brendon is here 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"By placing a 'forbidden' image under someone's nose you are essentially making it impossible for them to read the article at all."-
1. Even if some images are offensive in nature (which I don't think matters in an encyclopaedia any more than the font-name) it's a logical fallacy (namely, Camel's nose and/or Foot in the door) to claim that it makes it impossible for any sensitive man to read the article at all. Come on, no healthy person is going to get an heart-attack or something (only then it will make it truly impossible).
2. I think User talk:New questions above has expressed it finely. No need for me to repeat it again. (see proposal above) Brendon is here 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides, the claims of offense aren't floating around because pictures are "decorative"(a quality which is at least essential to an article's quality in your own opinion), are they? The truth is the opposite, you're only devaluing the contributions of the images by derogatorily labeling them as "merely decorative", because of the claims of offense (or is it because you are offended? Just curious).
And BTW, decorating an article with relevant images is not a "mere" (as in trifling) act, finding appropriate images requires just as much diligence and hard-work as anything else we do in wikipedia.
My point is muslim people still draw pictures of Muhammad. And if you want an exact date or more price time-length, then I think you should talk to User:Johnbod. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"But the notion that sensitivity of the reader doesn't matter is deeply irrational and dysfunctional"- I can sense some abhorrence and undue acerbity in this apparently illogical and overly-simplistic comment.
"a subject utterly irrelevant to the sections they illustrate"
- It's your opinion. Do you really believe (let alone proving it) that a
depiction of Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel (From the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani) or a depiction of Muhammad where he is prohibiting intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage is not relevant in Muhammad article?
Well, guess what, I don't hold your view nor I am impressed by your weak attempt to justify censorship. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
@Griswaldo,
I don't think that all our policies are subjective. Most of acts of vandalism are treated delicately and I'd say there is not much room for subjectivity there. But, even if they are partially subjective, we have a scope to build up consensus for or against that. That's how Wikipedia works.But the bigger point is why are we talking about subjectivity? Yes some people are offended that's a fact. But so what? Offensiveness is not a relevant reason in favor of deletion of content. Brendon is here 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
“"Offensiveness" ... has nothing to do with subjectivity”? One thing may be offensive to you though I do not find it unsavory, that's subjective. I'm quite certain that you're saying something else.
Oh I see, “"It's subjective" is nonsensical”
- No that's not nonsensical and this RfC is itself the proof of it. Now you may say that "subjectivity" alone cannot be cited as a credible argument for or against deletion of pertinent content and I concur with that much. But again, who is the one actually citing "subjective" issues alone as credible argument for or against censorship? Who is doing that? I mean, is it me?
Brendon is
here
19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. They are based on mostly experience and opinions (so is science and thus consensus of sane people matters in science). Who has disagreed with that? For the record, something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on facts. And I am even saying that just because Policies may be modified/ignored, it doesn't mean they need to be modified/ignored. Why are we talking about subjectivity? Can we just stop talking about "subjectivity"?
The demand of censorship, based on claims of offense, is subjective but that's not only reason why we should not work upon it, another important reason is it stifles the flow of information and unnecessarily curtails editorial freedom which in turn works to the detriment of the mission of any encyclopaedia.
"I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing before you understand." cheers! Brendon is here 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)