Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia

[JK8]

What difference does it make? I might picture my girlfriend with the body of Scarlett Johansson, but that doesn't change my feelings towards my girlfriend.

Well if Jesus reminds you of your girlfriend, and your girlfriend isnt good enough for you, and Scarlet is, maybe you should jump ship?

 

[Robin Hood]

Haha, good thing she doesn't read these forums

But what I can't understand is what difference it makes by praising a deity through a symbol. You are not indulging in symbol-worship as you do not worship the symbok itself, nor is it imbued with godly powers. By using a symbol through which to worship your God, you may, personally be able to forge a stronger bond between yourself and your deity as you are connecting to him/her/it through something tangible.

Basicly its like having a pic of your child in your hand while thinking of her/him...thats all

 

[mercurial]

Wiki is a reference site, it should not show pictures.

OMG, i take back my other statement(the dumb statement you made). This is the dumbest thing i've heard. It's an online encyclopaedia. So then by your logic, Brittanica and Encarta should also have no pics

 

[hj2k_x]

It is forbidden to depict pictures of The Prophet!
If you want then you do it.
Wiki is a reference site, it should not show pictures.

I disagree. Wiki is a site that is free to all to contribute their facts and information about certain issues, including pictures, if necessary. Censorship like that is not an option. If it goes against what you believe, then just do not visit that page, or the site at all. Simple.

 

[Kasyx]

It is forbidden to depict pictures of The Prophet!
If you want then you do it.
Wiki is a reference site, it should not show pictures.

Why shouldn't it show pictures? Pictures are often used to REFERENCE something? YOU believe there should not be pictures of Mohammed on Wikipedia. I do not. I believe that knowledge should be free to everyone and be free of censorship or corruption, my freedom to access knowledge should not be impaired by the prohibitions you and yours put upon yourselves.

 

[bwana]

I think it would be easy enough to accommodate everyone by masking sensitive images until clicked on.

 

[JK8]

OMG, i take back my other statement(the dumb statement you made). This is the dumbest thing i've heard. It's an online encyclopaedia. So then by your logic, Brittanica and Encarta should also have no pics

Ok I didnt finish the sentence.
It should not show pics of The Prophet especially if the religion forbids it.
Is there pictures of the Prophet in Britanica and Encarta?

I disagree. Wiki is a site that is free to all to contribute their facts and information about certain issues, including pictures, if necessary. Censorship like that is not an option. If it goes against what you believe, then just do not visit that page, or the site at all. Simple.

Its for the uninformed. How can you read about a religion that forbids pictures of the Prophet but on the sides its showing made up pics of him?

 

[Killove]

I think it would be easy enough to accommodate everyone by masking sensitive images until clicked on.

Thats what its about bwana, tolerance. If you dont want to look at it, you shouldnt have to. and if it is so imperative that you do, click away.
great idea

 

[mercurial]

I think it would be easy enough to accommodate everyone by masking sensitive images until clicked on.

but it still won't solve the problem. the problem being that the images are there in the first place. they just don't want the images on the site.

 

[Kasyx]

I think it would be easy enough to accommodate everyone by masking sensitive images until clicked on.

Makes sense to me, the question remains though; where do you draw the line? How long until all images on Wikipedia have this kind of censorship?

 

[mercurial]

It should not show pics of The Prophet especially if the religion forbids it.
Is there any pictures of the Prophet in Britanica and Encarta?[/

your religion forbids it. not other religions. so why should the world change cos your religion doesn't like it?

correction: Are there any pictures of the Prophet in Brittanica and Encarta?

it doesn't matter whether or not Encarta shows pics of Muhammad. That's not the point. The point is that it shows pics at all.

 

[JK8]

Why shouldn't it show pictures? Pictures are often used to REFERENCE something? YOU believe there should not be pictures of Mohammed on Wikipedia. I do not. I believe that knowledge should be free to everyone and be free of censorship or corruption, my freedom to access knowledge should not be impaired by the prohibitions you and yours put upon yourselves.

Because its a false Illustration.
A car pic is a car pic, theres evidence to show what the car looks like.
Yes for the 1000th time I believe there should not be any pics.

You believe that fake pics are fine then thats your problem. The information you taking in by looking at a pic is false.

 

[Pixie22]

How about this..

When you register with your service provider, you specify whether you are Islamic or not. If you are Islamic, then all pages are converted to text only. No movies, music, pics.. porn... ONLY TEXT! Now Id like to see how many Islams would go for that option.

 

[alloytoo]

but it still won't solve the problem. the problem being that the images are there in the first place. they just don't want the images on the site.

I think they should just prohibit Middle-eastern ISP's from accessing that page. (Israel excepted of course)

 

[hj2k_x]

Because its a false Illustration.
A car pic is a car pic, theres evidence to show what the car looks like.
Yes for the 1000th time I believe there should not be any pics.

You believe that fake pics are fine then thats your problem. The information you taking in by looking at a pic is false.

No pics at all on Wiki of any kind? Surely not?

 

[Robin Hood]

I just had a look at wikipedia icw Mohammad, and ill tell you ( as i know nothing of that religion ), it looks damn interesting...ppl can learn from this..Also NO pic of Mohhamad there that i could see

 

[mercurial]

I think they should just prohibit Middle-eastern ISP's from accessing that page. (Israel excepted of course)

assuming they're even allowed internet access.

 

[alloytoo]

I think they should just prohibit Middle-eastern ISP's from accessing that page. (Israel excepted of course)

Actually, easier, have a "Click here if you object to the content of this page" button.

Click sends a cookie, voila you'll never have to access that page again, not even by accident.

 

[JK8]

Ok so you resorting to nitpicking posts now...

Oh well i hope they remove the false picture depicting The Prophet.

 

[bwana]

Makes sense to me, the question remains though; where do you draw the line? How long until all images on Wikipedia have this kind of censorship?

Is masking but keeping it easily accessible censorship?