Wikipedia angers muslims.

[genie_weenie]

Fortunately only a http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia">petition demanding Wikipedia respect other peoples religions have been made...

Have far does respecting another's beliefs have to extend?

[Esra Star]

1. It would be nice to ask them what parameters they had in mind.

You know, actually talk with them.
Cheers

[ingac70]

2. I draw the line at blowing people up.

:evilgrin:

[begin_within]

3. Ah, Wikipedia... the world's most trusted source of misinformation.

Why anyone on this entire planet takes anything in Wikipedia seriously is beyond me. It's the virtual equivalent of scrawled messages on bathroom walls - and the army of arrogant editors that volunteer for it make it even worse.

[Extend a Hand]

6. I have not found that to be true

What have you found to inaccurate? I'm just wondering about the content
(I have no idea about the editors)

[begin_within]

7. I think "incomplete" and "out of date" are better descriptions, rather than "inaccurate"

[lurky]

8. I've seen plenty of little mistakes and falsehoods over there.

Not on the high-traffic topics or the really technical math/science stuff, but on the low-traffic general interest stuff. Go look up the article on your home town, for instance, and I bet you'll find something inaccurate.

[Tesha]

13. If you find that to be true, all you have to do is fix it!

You can spend ten seconds, ten minutes, ten hours, or
ten days, depending on how the spirit moves you.

Tesha

[lurky]

17. Yeah, I've done it.

Sometimes I just don't have the time or the energy though.

[alittlelark]

19. I just looked up my city and found no inaccuracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California

They didn't mention that Courtney Loves' nutsy father lives here w/ his nasty pitbulls.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1995/09/26/NEWS1839.dtl&hw=pit+bull&sn=335&sc=172

[KharmaTrain]

15. If You Use It As Your Only Source Of Info...

I friend of mine who teaches just told me about a kid she had to hold back thanks to his constant use of Wiki. She'd assign a paper and sure enough he all but cut and pasted the Wiki article into his paper. What's worse...she asked him to explain what he wrote and couldn't. Plagerism is bad enough, but not even understanding what you plagaraized? Sheesh.

Personally, I find Wiki can be useful in many areas, but more for the links the site provides. It's a good place for background...for real information, that's where the links and the digging begin.

[LanternWaste]

21. There was a pretty spot-on (but dead-panned) quote by Steve Carrell during one episode of "The Offic

There was a pretty spot-on (but dead-panned) quote by Steve Carrell during one episode of "The Office" which sums up brilliantly how I feel about it...


"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

My lunch hour hobby is going to to the discussion tabs of hot button topics on Wikepedia-- and we think we have flame wars here...?

[begin_within]

22. The real problem with Wikipedia is the army of volunteer editors, who are

given a little power over various sections of it, and proceed to exert that power to twist the whole thing to how they see it. They seem to revel in that power as if they were doing something important or profound. And yet they have nobody to answer to in their little feifdoms. Graffiti isn't the problem with Wikipedia, it's the editors, who are worse than the graffiti artists because they are given power by the owners.

[mattfromnossa]

27. wikipedia is awful

Wikipedia is a clear case of the inmates talking over the asylum! It is run by organized volunteer super-nerds as though they were feudal lords! Just go on the site and see the nasty goings on for yourself. And they are at it twenty-four hours a day with a passion!

Whoever prevails in any disputes about what is indeed “fact” gets to create or rewrite history as though it were true regardless of it is or not. Whoever can gather the most consensus wins. This is effectively accomplished by using a number of fictitious “user names” called “sockpuppets,” or by belonging to or organizing complicated alliances!

If they do not like what you say, it’s deleted.

If you restore it, they remove it again.

Restore it again and they remove it again and so forth until a volunteer “administrator blocks you from further edits. Usually the administrator is elected and beholding to those you are opposing so if you do not belong to any click or manufacture your own “fiefdom” you are lost!

That would be okay if they were calling themselves a Blog site, but they are calling themselves an “encyclopedia” even though one does not need any particular education, experience, expertise in any field, or writing skills to be an “editor”. Of course that is a train wreck just waiting to happen, especially when someone has an axe to grind against another person or organization and they libel them.

Making matters worse, there are many mirror sites like “Answers.com” that cite these “articles” because anyone is free to copy and paste and use any content found on the site as long as they reference (and simultaneously promote Wikipedia while doing it). Therefore anyone with a PC can create or completely change the truth to suit themselves -even libel someone — on Wikipedia, and then anyone with a PC can mirror the articles in other sites calling themselves dictionaries, encyclopedias and further this perversion of the true and facts.

That is ridiculous, like Wikipedia itself. All the other sites that carry any Wikipedia libelous content should be included in future class action suits, as well!

[begin_within]

30. ...and if you argue with them, they blacklist you. So much for the original concept...

[Tesha]

33. They take their Civility and No Personal Attacks policies seriously.

> and if you argue with them, they blacklist you.

Wikipedians take their Civility and No Personal Attacks policies
seriously and enforce them, unlike certain other places we both
know of that allow at least the "cool kids" to run rough-shod
over many of us.

Stay within those guidelines, and you can have a long and happy
career contributing to the Encyclopedia. Violate those core
principles and you'll be blocked or banned pretty quickly.

Tesha

[begin_within]

36. (except when it comes to how they treat you, then civility goes out the window)

[RL3AO]

37. Not exactly. You need to vandalise something 5 times to get blocked...and that is for 31 hours.

IMO, WP is not strict enough

[Tesha]

38. The "warnings escalation" policy is just a serving suggestion.

> Not exactly. You need to vandalise something 5 times
> to get blocked...and that is for 31 hours.

The "warnings escalation" policy is just a serving
suggestion; the admins do not need to follow that
escalation nor are they constrained to only issue
a 31 hour block on first offense.

It's all left up to the admins' discretion.

Tesha

[Crunchy Frog]

4. I certainly would hope that Wikipedia would not cave on this.

If somebody finds pictures of Muhammad offensive, they are under no obligation to look at the site.

[genie_weenie]

9. I also hope Wikipedia doesn't give in,

but I also hope any editors whose identities are known to the public get themselves a handgun.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Interesting discussion on the "discussion" page.

Doesn't look like they are going to cave.

[EFerrari]

12. What?

[genie_weenie]

25. For self-protection.

[cgrindley]

5. If someone believes in something stupid... there is no reason on earth to respect it

privileging religion over any other irrational, dangerous or idiotic belief is ridiculous. Should wikipedia remove photographs of the earth from orbit because it irritates the flat earthers? Would anyone give blanket respect to a person who asserts that light travels at 9 miles per hour?

[Quantess]

11. I can just see the fists raised in the air

as the Muslims jump up and down in the packed streets. "Death to Wikipedia!"

[ck4829]

14. You can't mention Andy Stephenson on Wikipedia without an army of Freepers removing it

But this gets to stay?

[lefty_mcduff]

16. Religious folks (of any stripe) can follow their own dogma,

but to expect everyone else to follow their regulations is a bit much. As wonky as Wiki is, it's supposed to be a secular source of information, presents a supposedly neutral POV, and warns that certain images may offend. If people of the Islamic faith don't wish to draw, sculpt or depict their prophet that's their choice, and their right. Demanding a secular site remove images because of these beliefs is not on.

Anyone offended by these pictures is welcome to avoid the website, turn off graphics in their browser, or even start up their own Wiki using the free software provided. They're also welcome to start up an online petition (almost 90,000 signatures at present) but to expect others to abide by the tenants of any faith is not on. Similarly, I eat pork, meat on Fridays, and spend a few hours every Sunday night catching up on work that I've fallen behind during the week. If I wanted to practice certain religions, I might have to change some of this, but I don't, so I won't. I'll be damned if I'm going to change because someone else's religion says that I should. Next, somebody will start a petition that they're offended by Liberal philosophy and demand that DU be censored. I applaud Wiki for taking the stance that they have.

[supernova]

23. Feel exactly the same

There is no right not to be offended in an open global society.

[Squatch]

18. The thing is...

the art depicting Muhammed veiled/unveiled is absolutely stunning. Why they would be ashamed to show a beautiful depiction of their religious icon is beyond me. But, that's just me.

In this case, the depiction of Muhammed in an academic setting trumps their desire to be unoffended.

[Firespirit]

20. Oh, that battle must be a good one to watch

The utter pomposity of your average Wikipedia sysop-wannabe, versus the irrational rage of the average fundamentalist.

Maybe they should make their own wiki, a la the Conservapedia brigade, if they don't like the content of that wiki. It amazes me how many people think they have the right to dictate the content of the Internet.

[RedCappedBandit]

24. I don't respect such beliefs

and couldnt care less if somebody were offended by it.

If the people at wiki feel the same way, then they have absolutely no obligation to listen to this petition.

[fascisthunter]

26. It Angers Right Wing Christians Too

facts usually do.

[Dawggie]

28. I have to ask haw far does respecting another's superstitions have to extend?

Read my sig line.

[and-justice-for-all]

29. Why is a Muslim looking up their religion on Wiki anyway?

PS: Then dont fuckin' read about your religion on Wiki, the truth can be painful.

[Quantess]

31. So, are angry muslims "over" it yet?

or will we find out about it later?

[KatyMan]

32. They would really hate

uncyclopedia's article... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Muhammed

[Tesha]

34. You might have mentioned that that article is marked "*NOT SAFE FOR WORK*" (NT)

[genie_weenie]

35. Ha ha did you see the entry for that guy

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh">Rush Limbaugh... Whoa...