Censorship vs. Bias: The Wikipedia
Submitted by Taran on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 16:53
Since my original post on Muhammad and the Wikipedia, I've been following the online media and its fickle course through the issue itself. I haven't participated in the Wikipedia discussion itself- I do not bother logging in to the Wikipedia anymore, it makes no sense to me to discuss with people who don't really want to listen and thus making it dueling monologue. And as someone who is not Muslim, I find the behavior of lots of people who are not Muslim to be anything but exemplary. I've not seen a Muslim go as far out of line as some of the critics of the Islamic philosophy that at least a fair proportion of online Muslims tend to subscribe to.
I wonder how much of this has to do with this, 'War on Terror' as well. It seems like just about every bigot who was missing a cause has hopped on the 'they want us to censor the Wikipedia' bandwagon. I even doubt many of the people on the bandwagon have done anything with the Wikipedia other than seeing or hearing about it from someone else. As an interested Buddhist far removed from Christian and Islamic fundamentalism - which has made this issue such a hot spot - the most sensible discussions seem to be coming from the followers of Islam who continue to stand for what they believe in. In fact, I have found little in their discourse that was offensive. But as I said, I have been watching the media - and the media on the internet is ruled by the United States. And that comes with its own bias - and it also brings out the bigots on the other side who say that the United States media and websites are nothing more than Anglo-American men deciding what others should read. The trouble in following this, as someone who is half Anglo (and therefore not Anglo or anything else), is that... its hard to twitch my head sideways when I hear it. The media seems very biased.
Hold on. I have a pretty good reference.
Slashdot and the New York Times
Slashdot, the lead geek reference in the world, runs a headline 'Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia'. The relevant quote is this, complete with link to the New York Times:
The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him...
Now, let us look at the New York Times article itself, which is titled much more sensibly: Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized. Already, we see a difference. The leading geek resource on the internet has taken a New York Times article and twisted it into a headline for page reads. It is done all the time, we know that (or should) - but this time, it isn't intended to make the situation better. But here's the fun part: The New York Times article has only one use of the word 'censor' in it and it is a quotation (emphasis mine):
...A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”...
So, if the Slashdot article were interested in accuracy it would have quoted the FAQ on the Wikipedia related to the discussion - which is available here. But Slashdot isn't really a news source as much as a place for geeks to share information. Apparently not Muslim geeks who don't agree that they are requesting something others call 'censorship'.
And a million and one people will read Slashdot, not look at the issue and just run with the headline. But is it censorship?
Censorship
Censorship, by definition, is the suppression of things deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. On the surface, it might seem like the people who want images of Muhammad taken from the Wikipedia are requesting censorship. But let us flip this around for a second.
Suppressing what others believe based on what the suppressors consider to be objectionable on moral, political, military or other grounds is... censorship. The concept of censorship does not suffer recursion. The same people who may want to leave the pictures of Muhammad in may not want their children to view pornography on the internet. The same people who may not be comfortable discussing the Race of Jesus may wish to impose their beliefs about the beliefs of others. Is that censorship? By definition, yes it is. And it is completely natural to do without thinking, as so many people are doing. But doing so blindly is not a good thing.
It really is a tangled mess because 'censorship' is as much a matter of 'Point of View' as is any other aspect of belief.
The Bitter Core
Now here's for the twist: the arguments that I have read against the use of images of Muhammad have been centered around a philosophy - be it written or not - which at its core is trying to avoid the type of debacle seen in 'Race of Jesus' issues. From what I read others write on the internet, this makes so much sense. Does it really matter if Jesus Christ was of any race? Does him having a certain race have any bearing on what he taught? Well, I don't think so - but obviously some disagree. What do I know, anyway?
Wait a minute. Why is there a 'Race of Jesus' page anyway? Why isn't that on the entry for Jesus Christ? Why is it separate? And how would hiding the images of Muhammad so that only those who wished to view them could see them... how would that differ? You can build me a house of cards in argument, but common sense and wisdom lays it flat. I tell you this: It is 52 pickup when it comes to censorship and bias. If there is no double standard here, it is because of a culture that hides the double standard... something cultures are very good at doing.
The 'Bias' of 'Reliable Sources'
In a speech defending the culture of India, Gandhi made a point on how much of India's education at the time was being rewritten in English. This same point - these same points Gandhi makes - point to censorship of culture through language. Through books.
Our language is the reflection of ourselves, and if you tell me that our languages are too poor to express the best thought, then I say that the sooner we are wiped out of existence the better for us. Is there a man who dreams that English can ever become the national language of India? (Cries of 'Never'.) Why this handicap on the nation? Just consider for one moment what an unequal race our lads have to run with every English lad. I had the privilege of a close conversation with some Poona professors. They assured me that every Indian youth, because he reached his knowledge through the English language, lost at least six precious years of life. Multiply that by the number of students turned out by our schools and colleges, and find out for yourselves how many thousand years have been lost to the nation. The charge against us is that we have no initiative. How can we have any if we are to devote the precious years of our life to the mastery of a foreign tongue? ...
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Carrying this point further is not difficult. Many texts being used as references in the English speaking world are not the actual works of the cultures that created them - and some things do get lost in translation. When in doubt, you're supposed to ask - not run roughshod over them. In my years of dealing with different cultures before the Internet and afterward, I have learned the hubris of imposing what I know by book on what people know by rote. Indeed, as I pointed out elsewhere, Buddhism itself had nothing written down for at least 100 years.
So, obviously, there is room for debate in everything. There are many aspects to many things, and it is hubris to think that a few people who are behind Wikipedia are the only credible sources in the world. They claim to listen to editors, but that is sort of like a racist saying that they have 'friends of ethnicity' as a defense against racist allegations. And the whole NPOV issue is built on what these people consider to be 'verifiable sources'.
And this, you see, is where the Wikipedia falls on its gilded sword. The verifiable sources are predominantly from one part of the world, and are interpreted by people who are predominantly from... one part of the world.
And with the digital divide as it is, with less than 20% of the global population even able to use the internet, the skewing of the data should be apparent to anyone. We have Dog Poop Girl on the internet because of 'verifiable sources'. I fail to see how that makes the world a better place.
Consider The problem with Wikipedia and bias where the author has this to say:
...So here was Wiki’s problem with clarifying the Chavez explanation of Aznar as a “fascist”: the BBC was OK but ZNet and Venezuela Analysis were both unusable “biased” sources, unlike Time magazine. No “original research” was allowed but rather reportage based on administrator-determined “reliable” sources. I was urged to agree on a “consensus” with the Wiki administrators. I gave it up as a bad bet...
A bad bet indeed. It is because of issues like this that I stopped supporting the Wikipedia.
"I do not want my house to be walled in on sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
Would that the Wikipedia and other web resources realize that the internet is still a walled garden, that culture is larger than 'verifiable sources', that compassion and tolerance are at the core of most philosophies and religions, and that 'censorship' as a concept must be applied to itself as vigorously as possible in the same way that 'Freedom of Speech' should not interfere with the 'Freedom of Speech' of others.
There have been 2 main compromises to the issue of Muhammad and the Wikipedia presented, one being that the images should be hidden and viewable to only those who click on them - or a separate page for those who do not want the images. Everyone who disagrees with this says it will be a 'bad precedent', or 'what comes next'? I'll tell you what comes next: More issues, as there always will be. But hard lines and false stances have gotten us to the same point where we are now: are we so afraid of working at better relations with other human beings that we cling to concepts that do not apply? There is no censorship in the compromises suggested. If you're too lazy to deal with people around the world and work through issues then maybe you shouldn't be claiming to handle global content.
Right now, I think that the Wikipedia has been blown off its feet by its own culture. A culture which is increasingly being criticized for being biased.
The top of a slippery slope
Yes, I'm involved in Wikipedia. I've noticed all this controversy as an outside observer, and I've come to the conclusion that refusing to censor the article is a good decision.
Ultimately, this issue is definitely one of censorship. While it is clear that the images are offensive to these people, that they propose the removal of the images is a proposal for censorship. One might similarly find censorship in a North American context: nakedness is routinely censored. North American mainstream media would probably attempt to exclude or obscure, say, a woman's bare breasts on television, while many societies have no issue with female toplessness. Our insistence on removing or obfuscating such an image is an issue of censorship - we merely regard it as right in the context of our society. Any conscious elimination of information deemed improper on moral, religious, political, or other grounds is a form of censorship.
One policy of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not censored. This is included in the official disclaimer for the site. Censorship is, by its nature, a form of bias - one who censors something has imprinted upon the censored object a set of values which corresponds to their own. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that Wikipedia should attempt to present a neutral point of view. Since censorship is a form of bias, Wikipedia, on philosophical grounds, must refuse to censor the article.
I'm surprised that your argument comes out the way it does - I find, in particular, one of the Gandhi quotes to clearly support the retention of the images:
"I do not want my house to be walled in on sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
I would interpret Gandhi's statement to mean that he appreciates cultural diversity, but he would not have any one culture dominate (blow off the feet of) another. Accepting censorship of Muhammad images is allowing an Islam point of view to dominate an element of that Wikipedia article.
Worse, allowing censorship in any form might become a slippery slope - if Islam people are to censor images of Muhammad, should strict Christians be allowed to arbitrarily remove, say, articles or illustrations about, say, sexual practices deemed immoral by the Church? Should strong-atheists be allowed to delete (normally accepted) religious images? Allowing censorship in any real form is a slippery slope - there is no real answer of where acceptable, regulated removal of arguably disreputable material becomes censoring ideas that you do not like - China's Internet is censored to remove all information about a certain incident from April 1989, but this is obviously inappropriate. Why is this wrong and yet removing Muhammad images right? I fail to see the logic.
You make it sound very Boolean.
Yet the Wikipedia decided not to even meet the group of people halfway, and shot down proposals that were not censorship... and not one person who was asking for the images to be taken from their sight was in disagreement.
It is very sad that such an opportunity was squandered. There was an opportunity to create a functional work that explained everything, did not censor anything, and would not have offended the group in question.
Its that sort of bias - and it is bias - that creates a censorship all its own. This wasn't about censorship. This was about finding middle ground and accomodating true NPOV perspective in a functional work. That you cannot, or choose not to see - well, I think that is the greatest travesty.
As far as your interpretation of Gandhi's statement: I suggest you read his work with more ardor than you find middle ground.
Further, if you look around the web and see what Muslims stand accused of - and the caliber of the accusations - know that you and the rest of the Wikipedia catalyzed it. [sarcasm]Congratulations. Well done. Take a bow.[/sarcasm]
And another thing...
You need to explain why there is a separate page for the race of Jesus Christ, and how that would differ from having the images on a separate page.
The house of cards lies flat.
Meeting halfway
You say that Wikipedians "shot down proposals that were not censorship..." - is there a particular proposal you are referring to? I personally like the idea that Muslims can simply register an account and add ".page-Muhammad img {display:none;}" to their personal CSS page (accessible at "Special:Mypage/monobook.css" for the default skin). You can see more instructions (which conveniently give the example for the Muhammad page) at Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images. This is a good solution, because it means that those who wish not to see the images can have their way without censoring it from those who do not mind.
Neither I nor Wikipedia is attempting to disparage Muslims in any way - the concern is that we don't tolerate censorship, in any form.
As for that page on the race of Jesus, that is an entirely different issue.
First of all, I am not a Christian. This isn't and shouldn't become a fight between Islam and Christianity - there are already too many rifts, especially with that incompetent American president around.
That issue of race is separated into its own page because it is a topic in and of itself, and it's standard practice to split off large enough sections of a long article into a subsidiary article. Jesus' article is over 100kb (very long), so it is clear that individual topics that can be separated off should be - the article is very long. This practice is also used in the Muhammad article: for example, there are articles on Muhammad's family tree and different periods in his life such as his time in Mecca which have been separated into individual articles on subtopics.
I mean not to offend but to inform, and I hope that you will appreciate that.
Have you seen the one where...
the images are not viewable unless they are clicked, or the disambiguation page?
Clearly, most people who use the Wikipedia are unregistered users. Forcing people to perform a registration to allow religious tolerance seems somewhat... silly.
The 'Race of Jesus' page is not a separate issue. Something like that could be done with entries related to Muhammad. Someone chose which section to pull out of the main page, anyway. It wasn't arbitrary. I could well argue that the way Jesus looked could be seen as central to the article and should be there whereas the long history and interpretations could be on separate pages. It wasn't arbitrary. Perhaps unconscious, yes, but not arbitrary.
The funny thing is that this is not an isolated situation. From the outside looking in - and I have been outside for over a year now - there are all manner of issues that demonstrate a definite bias toward certain media as verifiable sources, interpretation of what censorship actually is, and so forth. As someone who has remained relatively neutral but highly critical, there was a lot of potential that I saw in the Wikipedia. ]
That potential is now limited to a elite group which - and you have been much more communicative than even JW himself - so I will simply tell you what is seen outside of the clique of Wikipedia: Bias. Cultural and otherwise, propagated by the same books that were written with bias while other sites are discounted as not 'verifiable'.
Basically, if I want to know what a male geek from the United States thinks, I check out the Wikipedia. But if I want a more rounded view, I do my own research outside of the Wikipedia because the Wikipedia itself has become self limiting.
No offense - just telling you what I see. Considering I'm an American Buddhist who has been overseas for over 8 years, and who used to live a stones throw from St. Pete, Florida, yeah, I have my own perspective. At least I'm open about it. I think - and take this to heart, please - Wikipedia admin needs to really consider the limitations of the perspectives it has.
Further - I want to thank you - sincerely - for talking about this here. This, to me, means at least someone within Wikipedia admin is paying attention. While I do not speak for anyone but myself, you might want to consider that some of what I wrote is not specific to my own perspective: Others may think the same.
Post new comment