Wikipedia Refuses To Remove Pictures of Mohammed from Entry,
despite 90,000+ signatures on an online petition (though a quick skim of a few signatures suggests that not all of them endorse the petition's views).
Good for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia may certainly choose not to include such pictures, and still remain true to its mission. (I don't think it would be right for the encyclopedia to remove important historical details that some people are offended by, though the encyclopedia authors would surely have the First Amendment right to do this; but drawings representing the subject are not a necessary part of an accurate discussion of the issue.) But I think an encyclopedia may also properly refuse to succumb to such pressure, and I approve of the Wikipedia editors' refusal here.
Wikipedia seems like an encyclopedia to me. Is your problem with wikipedia or with encyclopedias generally?
See here
Of course Britannica challenged the methdology of that study, but It still has some validity.
Wikipedia is very useful within a limited set of purposes. It shouldn't be quoted as authoritative, but it's a good general knowledge source and can often provide a jumping off point for finding links to more authoritative sources.
Basically, hard science and computers are about the only thing you can trust on there....
It's certainly an encyclopedia, though, whether or not it's reliable or should be used in scholarly pursuits is up for debate.
Unless, of course, there is some trait associated with encyclopedias that I'm not aware of (and don't say accuracy, because for many entries wikipedia is more accurate than the britantica)
Absolutely agree that for hard science and computers (ie, things most people dont understand), and also TV shows, movies, etc (ie things everybody knows about), wikipedia is top notch. Anything about Islam / Israel/Palestine / etc is a wasteland.
Coming in several volumes, each one of which would be more than sufficient as a weapon against attacking small rodents?
"Both of [Herbert Hoover's] parents, Jesse Hoover and Hulda Minthorn, died when Hoover was 9 years old. His father died in 1880 and his mother in 1884."
Hoover must have been a leap-year baby.
Joking aside, good for Wikipedia.
When will all these religious fanatics both Christian and non, realize that if there is a god, he would prefer the time and energy be put to better use, like helping the poor or the ill.
Let see:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr
I am cornfyoosed.
Not in large parts of the Muslim world. Hmmm....
Wikipedia, after all, simply reproduced pics from centuries-old manuscripts which, I believe, are still extant, and the petitioners don't seem to have noticed that, or called for their destruction. Nether did the petitioners apparently bother to read down the page further to the link to the Wikipedia page "Depictions of Muhammad" (which includes several more, including, notably the Dore' illustration from Dante's Inferno of Muhammad in Hell)or to the page linked from there about the "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"; either page, compared with the relatively benign picture complained of, presumably would have sent the petitioners into apoplexy.
r gould-saltman
How do you know what God wants? And why can't He want both respect AND good works?
Though I suppose it would take a bit more sophistication to find something to burn to reflect outrage at wikipedia. There isn't exactly a wiki-embassy in Lebanon.
However, it is Wikipedia policy not to censor. Surely there are reasons to censor now and then, but the onus is upon the people wanting something removed to justify it.
If "being offensive" was grounds, Wikipedia would become worthless. (Cue the obvious joke.)
Exactly. Plead "infidel" and be done with it.
Wikipedia is generally properly sourced. Just follow the sources and quote the sources instead of Wikipedia itself.
Which speaks to one of the primary rules of Wikipedia: "No original research." Wikipedia itself is merely a collection of pages describing information found elsewhere.
As Islam itself is not of a uniform opinion (as though Islam were a unified religion), could not avoid 'picking sides'. It happened to come down on the side of historical accuracy and something that doesn't particularly worry the Shi'a.
This is an aspect of Islam that I just cant understand. Like the homosexuality thing in some christian sects. Why the emphasis?
Removing them entirely would be non-neutral: it would favor those who disapprove of the images. That seems totally wrong. Leaving them up allows those who want to see them to see them, and those who do not to stay away. Putting them on a separate page is slightly better in that it would allow the latter group to read the text about Mohammed without being forced to look at the pictures, while the former group can easily look at both.
I also think it would be a matter of respect to remove any references to the Yankee's collapse to the Red Sox in the 2003 playoffs.
I've got a whole list.
Giving into censorship != neutral point of view.
Talking about something and including images that pertain to the controversy isn't "taking sides" either. By your thinking it is "taking sides" to discuss both sides of an issue.
Maybe if it was Mohammed being aborted, they would allow an image.
In theory. In practice, extracting information from Wikipedia turns out to be hard, according to friends who have tried. Sure, you can grab the text as it existed, 4 months ago. But merging in subsequent data changes are a real hassle.
There is a definitional problem here. Neutral with respect to what frame of reference? Wikimedia is a non-profit foundation based in Florida. Presumably Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' must not conflict with the laws of Florida or the United States. Furthermore, the foundation itself has a point of view regarding the sharing of information which can not coexist with a point of view that thinks that information should not be shared, such as advocated by people who want to forbid pictures of Mohammed.
If the Wikipedia community or the Wikipedia foundation decide to accede to the demands of the petition, they are undermining their own mission. What other groups will demand information to be removed?
The real question is: Will the State of Florida and/or the United States defend the right of Wikipedia to share those pictures or will they shirk that responsibility if the petitioners go beyond petitioning?
That sefinitly is thw question. One I am affraid to have answered. They will probubly sue in Great Britian so that they can get a judgement.
By the way, showing picture of Christian god is as equally prohibited, except long forgotten.
Wikipedia is all politics. They have an article about abortion, but if you try to include an image of what is aborted then you'll be stoned to death. They won't allow an image of a fetus before and [sic] abortion, much less an image of a dismembered fetus after an abortion.
. . .and conservative Christian fanatics are sometimes almost as good as Muslum fanatics at parodying themselves far better than a creative writer ever could.
Where to start?
My Wikipedia shows me a bunch of pics of fetuses (feti?); it just doesn't happen to have one flagged as part of the "abortion" article with a big bumper-sticker-like-label saying something like "You're killing this baby!" which I gather would be his preferred presentation.
I've been edited on Wikipedia, and deleted; the Wikipedists-for-Prevention-of-Vice sent not a stone-thrower, deadly or otherwise, to my door. The Wikipedia pages relating to the abortion and fetal research issues provide what appear to be fairly comprehensive links to sites for advocates on both sides, where, I suspect, Mr. Hyman can find all the pics of dismembered fetuses he wants. I'm afraid that, in this forum, the idea that conservative Christian anti-abortion crusaders are somehow a tiny oppressed/outlawed minority in this country, persecuted even by those big, evil, government-sponsored (did I mention "stone-throwing"? Did i say anything about their jackboots?) Wikipedians, just doesn't get much traction.
If I wuz you, I wouldn't make so many assumptions. I'm a Christian fanatic? Does that make the editors of the Mohammed article anti-Muslim fanatics? You might try toning your rhetoris down just a tad. I am not Christian, and I dare say that I'm not a fanatic.
And if you would take the time to read what I wrote above, you might notice that I was criticizing the Wikipedia abortion article for including NEITHER an image of an intact fetus prior to abortion NOR a dismemebered fetus afterward. They won't tolerate either one. Seems kind of fanatical to me.
on politics and history, not so much. there are a plethora of propaganda warriors that distort entries and delete things they don't like. they are relentless and patient, and many have gained admin privileges. In my experience, trying to edit over there, there is a HUGE liberal bias. check out all the editors trying to add anything a few determined, powerful admins don't like to glenn greenwald's page, for example. at the same time, check out the 'sockpuppet (internet)' page, which smears a number of republicans. its the type of double standard that is rampant over there- blogs are not considered a viable source, unless they are smearing a conservative. then its all good.
The entry on Muhammad seems fairly well-researched. There are 167 citations and a few dozen other references.
I'm sure they would love to have corrections from any serious Muslim scholar.
As an analyst, a quick skim through some of the signatures noted that most who commented using the Prophet's name did not use the phrase "Peace Be Upon Him" or initials "PBUH." This makes me question the knowledge some of these signatories truly have about Islam itself, let alone whether or not Muhammad is permitted in pictures (as mentioned, it used to be okay, and then somewhere along the way, zap!).
Also as an analyst, yes, seeing the pictures themselves does make a difference. You cannot analyze something accurately if you have a mental image of something that turns out to be completely inaccurate.
The death penalty for Blasphemy. That's the mindset of Islamic censors, the believe that a libel action must be taken out on behalf of god and that the appropriate tort is death. I'd prefer not to believe in a god that has the same capricious needs as violent human hoodlams--to kill people for perceived insults of the slightest nature.
Blasphemy, libel in the name of a client who can't even be bothered to show up to court. Case dismissed.
If Wikipedia gave in on this, where would it end? For example, there is some controversy over other religous issues. The Wikipedia article on Mormon Temple garments, for example (sarcastically called "magic mormon underwear" by rude people) has pictures of the garments.
That is deeply offensive to Mormons, and Mormons are told not to photograph the garments, ever. However, Wikipedia has declared that they won't take down the pictures.
If Wikipedia gave in on the Mohammed pictures, would they then give in on the Mormon garments issue? What if a Hindu sect complained about something else?
Or blow it up.
But there are no pictures of Mohammed any more than there are pictures of Jesus.
Besides, Muslim illustrators have been drawing pics of "Mohammed" for centuries. Islamic art expert Wijdan Ali wrote an essay that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed did not arise until as late as the 16th or 17th century.
But, slowly, I have started using it more and more. Now, the first place I look for a generic description of something is Wikipedia. In my work as a patent attorney, I find myself routinely using Wikipedia entries in the background of patent applications I am drafting. Since these entries tend to be technical and non-controversial, it tends to be relatively accurate. And, it tends to be generic enough that it fits in nicely and never makes inadvertent admissions.
I also edit and contribute to Wikipedia. I agree that there is a liberal-left bias because there are many editors who lean liberal-left.
However, this is part of the beauty of Wikipedia - if you object to the bias, simply become an editor and correct it! This is what I do. Oftentimes, providing complete coverage and perspectives is sufficient to correct the bias.
So if you think that Wikipedia is biased, become a part of the solution.
As with the United Nations, after all of the criticism has settled, is not the world measurably improved by its existence?
The theological issue says all people are subject to the Sharia. I'm not. Neither is Wiki. How about you?
Now the VC editors face the same dilemma as Wikipedia. The suspense is killing me.
I don't know, but I don't pretend to know either. Furthermore, I don't particularly care. That's why he gave us free will, to be able to do something that even he is against.
" And why can't He want both respect AND good works?"
He can. It's his followers who can't seem to give both.
Where do I sign the "I support Wikipedia's decision and freedom of speech" petition?
It's
here, and enter a public comment along. I kicked in $50, along with a comment against censorship.
Well, define "better use." From the Christian perspective: If you read the Ten Commandments, you'll see that the first bunch of them are all about honouring God: no other gods before him, no graven images, no using the Lord's name in vain, etc.
Further down the list, you get to the "love thy neighbour" part, which is certainly relevant, but not underscored, bolded, and highlighted like the "I am God and I am first" commandments. Dishonouring the Lord in any way - the Creator, the Word - is the worst thing you can do.
Of course, you're getting into the theological debate about how people are saved - through works or through knowing God and salvation in Jesus. If you believe in salvation through good works, you'll want to spend your time helping the poor. If you believe John 4:16, it is more important to covert others so that their eternal souls are not spent in fire, torment, and away from their Creator. (It is more important to avoid eternal anguish - that being the ultimate suffering for a really long time - than to avoid temporary misery.) Ergo, it is "best" for believers to convert non-believers, rather than expending the same amount of energy improving their material condition.
Then again, depending on your feelings, you might think that people will be improved - and more Christ-like - through suffering (Hebrews 7, IIRC).
I'm not religious, so someone can correct this at will....
No.
Oh, you wanted the longer answer: Of course not.
Ohhhh, you mean the really really long, detailed answer? I'm afraid it's not available; you'd have to ask the fine folks of Srebrenica, or the Darfurians, and I hear they're in fairly short supply these days.
Waldensian, what a ridiculous picture! Everybody knows M. really looks like this:
_
( )
. .
\/
:-) Sorry that looks so lame; it's darned hard to do ascii art in HTML. (Actually, it's hard to do ascii art in any format, or any art for that matter, if you're me...)
Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, as Wikipedia itself states. A properly written Wikipedia article (and there are plenty of them) will have inline references citing each statement; those sources can be checked to verify the content.
Articles that have been highlighted as "Featured Articles" have undergone a thorough review, and a facet of that review is verifying sources, and (more importantly) verifying that they are accurate. Featured articles don't have references from blogs, discussion fora, or MySpace pages. Wikipedia is not supposed to publish original research, which includes combining parts of multiple sources to create a new conclusion (it's called synthesis).
Contentious articles tend to have a fair share of PoV pushing, and there are some areas that are not at all reliable, because they have been flashpoints for repeated abuse. Articles dealing with "alternative" anything (9/11 conspiracies, Homeopathy, Scientology), and some of the more virulent nationalism movements, such as Israel/PA, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Macedonia/Greece, Liancourt Rocks (that's a Japan/South Korea dispute), are areas that one must remain skeptical before consulting the sources.
When someone has a good answer to your questions, and can *prove* the answer, then I will listen to a lecture about God's will. Until then, they can go back home and not bother other people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ