How can we really determine that the name is "unambiguous"ly  
"offensive"?  Perhaps the person is a very religious Christian.

Zoe

 james duffy <jtdirl@hotmail.com> wrote:

Brion,
I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening
argument' comment. The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a
clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused
offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only
bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous
offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you
regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!

People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because
their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back
telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as
seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else. Your
continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think
that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because
religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of
causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But
mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest
political correctness? As a non religious persion myself, I find your
attitude and complete inability to see the scale of the offence caused
puzzling, to put it at its politest. I thought pluralism is concerned with
showing similar respect to all sides equally. Or are religious
sensitivities, specifically sensitivities towards christians, less important
that other sensitivities, specifically ones to do with oral sex?

Please explain why causing offensive to religious people is a 'huge
improvement' on a pun on oral sex.

JT.


>From: Brion Vibber
>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist
>Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:01:37 -0800
>
>On mar, 2003-01-28 at 11:53, james duffy wrote:
> > One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership
> > of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and
> > took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and
> > contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an
> > encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was
>on
> > the brink of giving.
>
>That would have made a _much_ more effective opening argument -- thank
>you for following up with details.
>
>Unfortunately, since Wikipedia didn't adopt a 'use your real name or
>post anonymously' policy, the selection of nicks, and the process of
>deciding what is and isn't acceptable, is always going to be arbitrary
>and ex post facto. (Does "Tokerboy" give the professional appearence we
>want to present to potential IP donors? Or even "Maveric149"?)
>
>Cf. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?UseRealNames on MeatballWiki.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>




_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l