Wikipedia talk:Five pillars: Difference between revisions
Free content |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::You, dear sir, have spent too long in academia :P |
:::You, dear sir, have spent too long in academia :P |
||
:::That's the most abstract quibble I've ''ever'' heard on Wikipedia! --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
:::That's the most abstract quibble I've ''ever'' heard on Wikipedia! --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Wikipedia is free content == |
|||
This section talks about text only, but increasingly images and perhaps later video will be important, and these are bound by the same princinples. Perhaps we should mention them at some point. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:21, 24 September 2006
 Archives |
|---|
|
Disrespectful of Islam
Is this based on "Five Pillars of Islam", not the actual defining terms but just the name for the directives? I would consider changing this to the "Five directives of Wikipedia", to be more neutral. Wikipedia is not a religion nor should it seek to immulate one. Most importantly, it should not degrade other religions in mimickry. I am not a muslim, but find this a offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LDHLontz (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2006.
- Interestingly, it's always non-muslims that claim, or fear, giving offense. See Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1#On Offending and Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1#Title of article and Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive1#Five Pillars of Islam. Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- It certainly wasn't non-Muslims who got offended at the Pope recently. This title offends me because it mocks one of the world's great religions. One needn't be a Muslim to be offended, any more than one needs to be Black to be offended by the n-word. RobertAustin 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Not a single Muslim has ever complained about this or taken offense. This is totally different issue than the Pope or the "n-word". In fact this is non-issue. What is perhaps offensive is comparing this issue of "Five pillars" (which itself is non-issue) to the Pope's words or the "n-word". Khorshid 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Consolidating policy listings
I'm asking for feedback on some merge-related suggestions, please come give input at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset#Merge suggestions?. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Estimation of number of articles to work on
Clause ...remember that there are 6,839,409 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on... seems to be incorrect; it is rather misleading to estimate the way ahead using the current mileage, however intuitively it must be between 6,839,409 and Graham's number. =DBWikis 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- How is it incorrect? It's exact! ? --Quiddity 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well that is exact current number of existing articles and would be the lowest boundary of number of articles to work on, while estimation of the highest boundary is somehwhat less trivial, no? -- DBWikis 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You, dear sir, have spent too long in academia :P
- That's the most abstract quibble I've ever heard on Wikipedia! --Quiddity 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well that is exact current number of existing articles and would be the lowest boundary of number of articles to work on, while estimation of the highest boundary is somehwhat less trivial, no? -- DBWikis 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is free content
This section talks about text only, but increasingly images and perhaps later video will be important, and these are bound by the same princinples. Perhaps we should mention them at some point. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)