More wikicontroversy.
February 7, 2008 6:05 PM Subscribe
Wikipedia has waded into the "Pictures of Muhammad" (peace be upon him) controversy with a picture within its entry about the prophet. Some folks are, predictably, upset and have started a petition about it - which captures a range of human emotion from absolute rage to absolute lulz.
From Wiki itself: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
From Wiki itself: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is the second post today about wikipedia, maybe this can be folded in to the current post on wikipedia? MeFi really isn't good for one wikipedia libnk and one "look at this petition" link. -- jessamyn
What's really hilarious are the people signing the petition thinking it's a comments form and leaving messages like:
"If you don't like the fact that there are pictures of a false pedophile prophet, then don't go to the website that has them, dumbasses! Down with IslamoFascism! Good for Wikipedia!"
While you may not agree with their opinion, you still signed the petition, dumbass.
posted by keep_evolving at 6:10 PM on February 7, 2008
"If you don't like the fact that there are pictures of a false pedophile prophet, then don't go to the website that has them, dumbasses! Down with IslamoFascism! Good for Wikipedia!"
While you may not agree with their opinion, you still signed the petition, dumbass.
posted by keep_evolving at 6:10 PM on February 7, 2008
Yea its more binary than "range"...ary.
posted by pwally at 6:10 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by pwally at 6:10 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's funny because the whole point in proscribing images of the prophet is so Muslims won't worship them like idols. Are the Muslims that the Kufr will start worshipping an image embedded in an Wikipedia page? Or that Muslims lack the willpower to refrain from worshipping a JPEG?
posted by mullingitover at 6:12 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by mullingitover at 6:12 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: a range of human emotion from absolute rage to absolute lulz.
posted by wastelands at 6:13 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by wastelands at 6:13 PM on February 7, 2008
---rage-----sadness----empathy-----indifference-----"first amendment!"----racists-----teh lulz-----
posted by uaudio at 6:15 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by uaudio at 6:15 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
If it's good enough for the US Supreme Court, it's good enough for Wikipedia.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by Dave Faris at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2008
i'm going to destroy my own neighborhood!
posted by TrialByMedia at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by TrialByMedia at 6:20 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
Ah. I am actually of the opinion that absolute rage and absolute lulz are basically indistinguishable.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:21 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:21 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm Muslim and all this is SOOO Boring, the Prophet himself was kinda cool guy and people are just full of anger for a lot of reasons (reasonable and unreasonable ones), just let this stuff go.
posted by zouhair at 6:23 PM on February 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by zouhair at 6:23 PM on February 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
Respect Muslims religion and please remove illustration.....
otherwise holy warriors may enact the will of god the merciful and fly aeroplanes full of infidels into buildings full of infidels. God willing
So please, bit of respect?
posted by mattoxic at 6:24 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
otherwise holy warriors may enact the will of god the merciful and fly aeroplanes full of infidels into buildings full of infidels. God willing
So please, bit of respect?
posted by mattoxic at 6:24 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
When I was in college, one of my professors taught a class with two textbooks. One quite recent and deep, and a "classic" text of several decades old. On the first day, he pointed out that on pg i was a full page portrait of Muhammad. He pointed out that any reference work that would include that shows absolutely no understanding of the topic it purports to discuss. (We then used that as a parallel "foil" text.)
Yes, I am all for "the right to be offensive," argument, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's one of well written scholarship. (I ran out of scare quotes). If you had any true understanding or true respect for the topic, you wouldn't even see it necessary. What does it add? Is it an honest representation, as if such a thing could even be purported to exist.
The topic of the image of Muhammad actually came up in the supreme court. I am sure some were outraged by the result.
Also, as it turns out, this is possibly two posts in the same day about how Wikipedia is written with people whose approach is to go deep but narrow.
posted by absalom at 6:34 PM on February 7, 2008
Yes, I am all for "the right to be offensive," argument, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's one of well written scholarship. (I ran out of scare quotes). If you had any true understanding or true respect for the topic, you wouldn't even see it necessary. What does it add? Is it an honest representation, as if such a thing could even be purported to exist.
The topic of the image of Muhammad actually came up in the supreme court. I am sure some were outraged by the result.
Also, as it turns out, this is possibly two posts in the same day about how Wikipedia is written with people whose approach is to go deep but narrow.
posted by absalom at 6:34 PM on February 7, 2008
Although, if there is anything that is going to bring us together as a species, it is our shared ability to manufacture outrage to order.
posted by absalom at 6:36 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by absalom at 6:36 PM on February 7, 2008
While you may not agree with their opinion, you still signed the petition, dumbass.
Yes, I'm sure "Oliver Clozoff" and "Boobs McGee" are feeling mighty redfaced right about now.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:37 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
Yes, I'm sure "Oliver Clozoff" and "Boobs McGee" are feeling mighty redfaced right about now.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:37 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
If you had any true understanding or true respect for the topic, you wouldn't even see it necessary. What does it add? Is it an honest representation, as if such a thing could even be purported to exist.
What are you arguing? That no reference article about a historical person who lived before the invention of photography should include a representation of the person, because it might not be "honest?"
Lots of Wikipedia articles about famous people who died a long, long time ago include artwork of some sort. Should it all be expunged?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:47 PM on February 7, 2008
What are you arguing? That no reference article about a historical person who lived before the invention of photography should include a representation of the person, because it might not be "honest?"
Lots of Wikipedia articles about famous people who died a long, long time ago include artwork of some sort. Should it all be expunged?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:47 PM on February 7, 2008
well written scholarship
The way to strive for well written scholarship is to exclude information that some readers may not like?
posted by Adam_S at 6:53 PM on February 7, 2008
The way to strive for well written scholarship is to exclude information that some readers may not like?
posted by Adam_S at 6:53 PM on February 7, 2008
--Tired of Islam. Next please.--
Tired of faux-jaded posturing. Unplug mate. Drink beer. Just don't feel obliged to hit the 'enter' key.
posted by peacay at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2008
Tired of faux-jaded posturing. Unplug mate. Drink beer. Just don't feel obliged to hit the 'enter' key.
posted by peacay at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2008
They're gonna have to kill a couple more priests for that. Thanks wikipedia.
posted by puke & cry at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by puke & cry at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2008
If I say something snarky in this thread, is there going to be a fatwa against me?
posted by jayder at 7:04 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by jayder at 7:04 PM on February 7, 2008
If you had any true understanding or true respect for the topic, you wouldn't even see it necessary.
If there were a religion that viewed symbolic writing as sacrilege, would the respectful scholar of that religion have to forbear from writing down his work?
posted by jayder at 7:07 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
If there were a religion that viewed symbolic writing as sacrilege, would the respectful scholar of that religion have to forbear from writing down his work?
posted by jayder at 7:07 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
absalom: If you had any true understanding or true respect for the topic, you wouldn't even see it necessary. What does it add? Is it an honest representation, as if such a thing could even be purported to exist.
There has to be a common idea of what he looks like, because you can draw images of him that people recognize - I don't think the bomb-head cartoon was labeled. The article would be remiss to include an example.
An article about a religion shouldn't necessarily respect that religion's rules, especially rules involving censorship. Imagine how much the articles on scientology would be cut down if you let the church have any kind of editorial control.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:12 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
There has to be a common idea of what he looks like, because you can draw images of him that people recognize - I don't think the bomb-head cartoon was labeled. The article would be remiss to include an example.
An article about a religion shouldn't necessarily respect that religion's rules, especially rules involving censorship. Imagine how much the articles on scientology would be cut down if you let the church have any kind of editorial control.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:12 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
I worship JPEGs all the time. They're right to be worried.
posted by goatdog at 7:14 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by goatdog at 7:14 PM on February 7, 2008
I hope I don't get in deep trouble for posting this picture of Mohammed:
:-)
(I suspect you've seen his portrait any number of times on the internet...)
posted by five fresh fish at 7:21 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
:-)
(I suspect you've seen his portrait any number of times on the internet...)
posted by five fresh fish at 7:21 PM on February 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
Oh sheesh. WIKIPEDIA = LORD OF THE FLIES
Okay so just a few weeks ago, I was looking for information about MS Business Scorecard Manager, a program that anyone who's ever worked in IT in a corporate environment is probably aware of. I was just looking for some really basic information about the software.
There was no Wikipedia article, which blew my mind. Thinking something was off, I did a little more searching, until I came across this deletion discussion. Neutral point of view my butt. Only Wikipedia could politicize such a boring subject.
Next time you can't find an article in Wikipedia (an increasingly frequent occurrence, it seems), click on "What Links Here." There, you'll find the deletion discussion, and you'll see the sort of vapidity that is killing Wikipedia.
posted by roll truck roll at 7:26 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Okay so just a few weeks ago, I was looking for information about MS Business Scorecard Manager, a program that anyone who's ever worked in IT in a corporate environment is probably aware of. I was just looking for some really basic information about the software.
There was no Wikipedia article, which blew my mind. Thinking something was off, I did a little more searching, until I came across this deletion discussion. Neutral point of view my butt. Only Wikipedia could politicize such a boring subject.
Next time you can't find an article in Wikipedia (an increasingly frequent occurrence, it seems), click on "What Links Here." There, you'll find the deletion discussion, and you'll see the sort of vapidity that is killing Wikipedia.
posted by roll truck roll at 7:26 PM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
~O:-(>
posted by puke & cry at 7:26 PM on February 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by puke & cry at 7:26 PM on February 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
The Baha'i version of this debate raged for years until a kind of "consensus" was met and the issue was pretty much dropped. I think the solution was to place it lower on the page.
posted by christopherious at 8:03 PM on February 7, 2008
posted by christopherious at 8:03 PM on February 7, 2008
« Older the other Public Enemy + Anthrax collaboration | (My)Folia Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But that isn't a "range" at all.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:08 PM on February 7, 2008 [4 favorites]