On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For those interested, there is a current request for arbitration on > English > > Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which > > contains some further views and discussion. I have summarised my view > that > > our illustrations, just like our texts, should follow good practice > > established in reliable sources here: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=457335488#Statement_by_Jayen466 > > > And the AC summarised theirs: 0 accept, 6 decline. As tends to happen > when people go forum-shopping. Do you have a problem with it if our approach to illustration matches that of our sources? Because the committee's reluctance to rule on this case has nothing to do with that question, but with the fact that, as framed by the editor who raised the request, it is a content rather than user conduct question (related to a longstanding dispute about image use in the pregnancy and Muhammad articles). The committee is quite rightly reluctant to rule on content, or write policy. As several arbitrators have said, it's still a discussion that needs to be had though. And for the avoidance of doubt, I did not raise that arbitration request, as I'm sure you know very well. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l