[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no personal attack

Sun May 28 20:58:32 UTC 2006

Fred Bauder wrote:
> You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad  
> idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue  
> I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be  
> shown. When a consensus develops, it is best to simply register your  
> dissent and move on. You do not need to ever agree, but you are not  
> entitled to keep agitating over the issue.

Many of "our users" never showed up again after that poll:
http://www.dartblog.com/data/004950.html
http://penumbra604.livejournal.com/25659.html
...

> The need to block a whole bunch of outraged users who would try to  
> remove the cartoons is one of the consequences of what I think was a  
> bad decision, but once made, the decision is going to be enforced.  
> Those who are enforcing the decision are just enforcing a community  
> decision.

What about WP:NBD and "WP:NOT a democracy" policies?
Are we now an Ochlocracy resp. Mobocracy instead,
and the admins are supposed to enforce the "mobs" decision?

> There is a point of view issue, but it is not so much American as one  
> of free expression, really a part of the zeitgeist, of which  
> Wikipedia is an expression. While I may not wish to publish the  
> cartoons because I can anticipate the pain of those who may be hurt  
> by it, the authority of Islam to forbid expression is generally  
> rejected.

Isn't there some kind of logical fallacy (non sequitur) here?

A => B
Since Islam limits free speech, Muslims refrain from 

                                 insulting any of their prophets.

reject A:
We value free expression and reject any authority
which limits free speech.

=> reject B: We have to insult Muhammad.

What about this example:

Laws in the country, where I live, limit free speech.
For example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust.

I value free expression and reject any authority
which limits free speech.

=> I have to deny the Holocaust.

Or an example from the U.S.:

In 1992, the US Supreme Court ruled that the burning
of crosses is not generally protected by the First Amendment.
If we value free expression, are we now supposed to join
the KKK?

-- 
Raphael