Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Tim Starling wrote:
>
>   
>> They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
>> the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
>> it was misused?
>> 
>
> As a non-membership non-profit corporation, federal law dictates that
> it must have a Board and that the Board has final responsibility.
>
> The Articles of Incorporation could have specified means for oversight
> of the Board, say by the community, but this was not done. They simply
> say that the Board will make its own rules for how its members are
> replaced.
>
>   
Yes, this is how it is organizationally. The white elephant
in the room though is that this is all pretty academic
because of the fact that Wikimedia projects operate
under a Free Licence.

What ever the legal situation is organizationally, it is
very near suicidal for the foundation to have any larger
disconnect with the community than which happened
just recently. It would only be an act of self-preservation
for the Board of Trustees to seek to find ways to decisively
prevent a recurrence.

As per Jimbos instruction to look to the future than the
past, I would suggest that the Board look post-haste into
instituting some form of institution that can offer (perhaps
under a similar confidentiality agreement that the board
itself operates under) constructive advice in a timely
manner (rather than after the fact), when it deliberates
which direction the Board of Trustees wants to take
things.

My suggestion would be that as a first, rudimentary
step, such a Community Advisory Group consist of
one person of known communicative ability and
insight (as determined by the Board of Trustees
themselves) from each Project, when feasible
representing more than one language in the overall
distribution. That is to say, one person each, from Wikipedias,
Commons, Wikinews projects, Wikiquote projects, Wikibooks
projects, Wiktionaries, Wikiversities, the Wikispecies,
Wikisource.  Assuming I haven't forgotten any projects,
that would make a nine member group.

> The law gives us some protection, in that it prevents Board members
> from running the Foundation for their own personal gain (aside from
> reasonable salaries and expenses). However, it's still very important
> that we pick Board members carefully when we have community elections,
> and that we encourage the existing Board to make good choices for
> appointments.
>
>   
This is of course indisputable.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[The Cunctator]

That about sums it up.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck  wrote:

> I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
> that I found so far add up.
>
> * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
> * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child
> porn. [affirmed]
> * The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift action. [apparent]
> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
> porn. [unaffirmed]
> * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and contacts
> many important companies that have donated money for Wikimedia in the
> past whether they want to comment on the allegations. [affirmed]
> * The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on.
> [unaffirmed]
> * The board worries about losses in donations and either sends Jimbo to
> Commons or Jimbo unilaterally decides to handle the case. [unaffirmed]
> * Without mentioning the previous developments Jimbo starts to delete
> all files that are "porn" (in his opinion, not sparing PD-old artworks
> etc.). Even engaging in edit-warring and ignoring input from the Commons
> community and ignoring community policies. [affirmed]
> * The Commons community condemns Jimbo's actions but has no power at all
> to stop the "Founder"-flagged berserk. [affirmed]
>
> Is this the story? Or are there any story arcs that I missed? Please
> correct me, wherever I am wrong.
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>   
>> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the 
>> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at 
>> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in 
>> use by any project*.
>> The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.
>> You get the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion.
>> 
> At this point it is because the issue of pornography has been
> completely overshadowed by the issue of the actions taken and Board
> support for them.
>
> The pornography issue *cannot* be resolved until these other issues
> are resoved. Cannot.
>
>   
As I said elsewhere, when yoi find a shark in your swimming pool it's 
easy to ignore the lewd behaviour in the corner of the pool.  The 
scavenging ravens that normally clean up the mess are wary birds, and 
may take a while before they can get back to work.

Ec

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva]

2010/5/10 Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva :

> I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
> example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
> are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
> that being very notable and encyclopedic, the pictures themselves
> might have their own article, so it's not like they are going to be
> deleted anyway)
>
> But some people (Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) would be harshly offended by
> deletion of those pictures. It might sound funny, but not accepting
> Islam rules on non-muslim contexts is very important to her (being a
> vocal ex-muslim, she received multiple death threats, and the director
> of a short documentary her wrote was killed). I would show opposition
> to this kind of deletion, but just because I'm a lot influenced by her
> (and dislike deletionism in general)

This was maybe confuse. The message I was trying to convey is:

a) For some people including nudity (in especial en masse) is offensive
b) For some people including depictions of Muhammad is offensive
c) For some people removing nudity (in especial en masse) is offensive
(eg. me :)
d) For some people removing depictions of Muhammad is offensive (eg. for Ayaan)

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva]

2010/5/10 Samuel Klein :
> Hello Elias,
>
> Welcome to the mailing list.

Hi! ^^

>> Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
>> Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?
>
> No, the whole Board does not have this position.  (not to speak for
> others -- I am on it, and I am opposed to the idea.)

Yours response, as well as Florence's, was refreshing.

I am actually embarrassed, since most of my comment wasn't very
constructive. (My comments on commons were even less balanced, but I
was really upset)

>
>> PS: I may look inquisitive, but I see this anti-porn campaign
>> contrasting to the complete lack of action when it was found that
>> wiki-en was grossly offending Islam for no better reason.
>
> I agree that the issue of images of Muhammad is similar to that of
> explicit sexual content -- both are highly controversial, considered
> by some to be educational or important; and by others to be useless
> and offensive.  We must find a way to deal evenly with all
> controversial material, and to understand the perspectives of
> different audiences.

I have no idea on how to deal with so many different expectations. I
myself always praised the position of some WMF projects regarding
showing human body, nudity in general and even and pornography. I
don't know much encyclopedias that show specific parts of human body
as they are, and as well as Wikipedia.

(I remember a single biology book of my high school with photos of
nude people - but it was mostly drawings. Plus, hmm, a really nice
History book with a nude painting on the cover, and that's it)

Looking at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20100507131846&type=delete&user=Jimbo+Wales&month=5&year=2010

I see that Jimmy deleted this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amy_with_dildo.jpg

With the rationale 'Out of project scope'

But it was restored, because it was being actually used on dutch
Wikipedia, on the article "Amateur porn"

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateurpornografie

So my conclusion is: amateur porn might be on topic on commons. And
currently unused amateur porn might find some use later.z

This state of affairs makes me feel really well. Wikipedia is a unique
encyclopedia in many ways. One of them is that it has illustrated
articles on amateur porn. No, people don't care, that's fine - but
this really means a lot for me. In my country, 100 years ago, there
were a revolt, called "vaccine revolt", where people rebelled against
compulsory vaccination. It was the greatest urban revolt of the old
republic[1]. A particular argument used by the rebels was that doctors
was entering to woman's houses, and had to see the naked arm of them,
even the naked arm of girls, so that they could handle vaccination. I
don't support compulsory vaccination, but this kind of reasoning
really shocks me. It is now a distant past. Brazil is not like that
anymore, and fortunately we now have schoolbooks with naked people on
the cover (as I remembered).

I sincerely don't personally care much about Muhammad pictures, for
example. If people decided to delete them, I would simply think they
are too afraid of offending, but I wouldn't care that much. (I know
that being very notable and encyclopedic, the pictures themselves
might have their own article, so it's not like they are going to be
deleted anyway)

But some people (Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) would be harshly offended by
deletion of those pictures. It might sound funny, but not accepting
Islam rules on non-muslim contexts is very important to her (being a
vocal ex-muslim, she received multiple death threats, and the director
of a short documentary her wrote was killed). I would show opposition
to this kind of deletion, but just because I'm a lot influenced by her
(and dislike deletionism in general)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Delirium]

On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees?
>>  
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
> domain names, to the Foundation at the time it was formed.
>
> We should remember, when we criticise his use of whatever remnant of
> power that he has left, that he could have easily structured Wikimedia
> as a for-profit entity, with him retaining majority control. We have
> Jimmy to thank for Wikimedia's non-profit status, its open-source
> software stack and its free content license.
>

That isn't really true, though. He recruited volunteers with the promise 
of the free-content license for sure, and with a sort of implicit 
promise of a generally free-culture / volunteer-run encyclopedia. If he 
had *not* promised anything, he would have had many more troubles 
recruiting volunteers. You do remember that GNUpedia was gearing up to 
serve as a competitor, and only backed down because Jimmy gave them 
enough assurances that Wikipedia was such a free-culture encyclopedia 
that their efforts would be redundant?

In short, Jimmy could not have gone the for-profit or non-free-culture 
route, because he would have been left more pitiful than Citizendium: a 
project with no contributors.

-Mark


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Marcus Buck]

Tim Starling hett schreven:
> On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
>   
>> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
>> of Trustees? 
>> 
>
> Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
> he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
> domain names, to the Foundation at the time it was formed.
>
> We should remember, when we criticise his use of whatever remnant of
> power that he has left, that he could have easily structured Wikimedia
> as a for-profit entity, with him retaining majority control. We have
> Jimmy to thank for Wikimedia's non-profit status, its open-source
> software stack and its free content license.
>   
If Wikipedia wouldn't have been so free today it would stand where 
Citizendium stands and another free encyclopedia project would have 
evolved in place. Wikipedia wasn't the only community-driven 
encyclopedia project. But it made the race and beat all its competitors 
cause no other project was as free and easily accessible as Wikipedia.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Tim Starling]

On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
> of Trustees? 

Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis donated the relevant assets, such as the
domain names, to the Foundation at the time it was formed.

We should remember, when we criticise his use of whatever remnant of
power that he has left, that he could have easily structured Wikimedia
as a for-profit entity, with him retaining majority control. We have
Jimmy to thank for Wikimedia's non-profit status, its open-source
software stack and its free content license.

> They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
> the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
> it was misused?

As a non-membership non-profit corporation, federal law dictates that
it must have a Board and that the Board has final responsibility.

The Articles of Incorporation could have specified means for oversight
of the Board, say by the community, but this was not done. They simply
say that the Board will make its own rules for how its members are
replaced.

The law gives us some protection, in that it prevents Board members
from running the Foundation for their own personal gain (aside from
reasonable salaries and expenses). However, it's still very important
that we pick Board members carefully when we have community elections,
and that we encourage the existing Board to make good choices for
appointments.

-- Tim Starling


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Elias,

Welcome to the mailing list.


On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
 wrote:
> 2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe :
> (..)
>>> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
>>> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
>>> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions.
>>> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my
>>> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the
>>> problem.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> I see no indication so far that the community *is* able to solve the problem.
>
> Sorry, I have never posted here, but I feel so sad reading such
> words... and other words spoken here at foundation-l.. the projects
> under the umbrella of WMF are so beautiful, so precious, to be treated
> this way... =

Thank you for your kind words for the projects.

> But well, so that's the reason Jimmy Wales must be so authoritarian?
> Because the Community of Commons can't solve this issue through
> consensus?
>
> Is solving this particular issue really more important than reaching
> consensus? Why?

It seems to me the only way a project can work through this sort of
complex issue is through careful consensus and decision-making.

I do not think solving it somehow is more important than reaching
consensus, or a decision that everyone can live with.  Questions of
how to deal with highly controversial content -- from images of
Muhammad to private personal information to explicit images of sex --
are often difficult to solve.

This may be the sort of complex decision that would benefit from a
community-run advisory or policy group, with representatives from many
projects.  Such decision making can take many months, and needs slow
but persistent attention and progress towards a balanced resolution.
[often our current practices of wiki-based decision making simply lose
steam after an initial burst of interest, and future iterations on the
theme have to start over from scratch.]

> Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something?
> Could you inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?

No, the whole Board does not have this position.  (not to speak for
others -- I am on it, and I am opposed to the idea.)

This is out of scope for the Board, which like the Foundation itself
generally stays out of content creation, policy-making, and governance
of the individual Projects.


> BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
> of Trustees? They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
> the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
> it was misused?

The Board governs the Foundation to support the interests of the
mission and the needs of the Projects.

In an emergency, the Board itself could remove a Trustee; in practice
there are elections and appointments each year.  Of our ten trustees,
there are six 'community trustees': three elected by the editing
community every two years, two selected by the national Chapters every
[other] two years, and Jimmy as founding trustee, reappointed each
year.  The other four trustees are appointed each year by the
community trustees.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_board_manual
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member


> PS: I may look inquisitive, but I see this anti-porn campaign
> contrasting to the complete lack of action when it was found that
> wiki-en was grossly offending Islam for no better reason.

I agree that the issue of images of Muhammad is similar to that of
explicit sexual content -- both are highly controversial, considered
by some to be educational or important; and by others to be useless
and offensive.  We must find a way to deal evenly with all
controversial material, and to understand the perspectives of
different audiences.

SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva]

2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe :
(..)
>> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
>> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
>> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
>> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
>> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
>> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions.
>> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my
>> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the
>> problem.
>
> Ting
>
> I see no indication so far that the community *is* able to solve the problem.

Sorry, I have never posted here, but I feel so sad reading such
words... and other words spoken here at foundation-l.. the projects
under the umbrella of WMF are so beautiful, so precious, to be treated
this way... =

But well, so that's the reason Jimmy Wales must be so authoritarian?
Because the Community of Commons can't solve this issue through
consensus?

Is solving this particular issue really more important than reaching
consensus? Why?

Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something? Could you
inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?

BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees? They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
it was misused?

Please don't say "the community".

PS: I may look inquisitive, but I see this anti-porn campaign
contrasting to the complete lack of action when it was found that
wiki-en was grossly offending Islam for no better reason. I must cite
this post:

2010/5/7 Milos Rancic :
(..)
> Did you see what Jimmy deleted? For example, Franz von Bayros painting
> [1]. That guy is not so famous, but I don't see anymore any sane rule,
> except: What Jimmy's sexually impaired super rich friend wish, Jimmy
> do and then Board transform into the rule or a statement.
>
> Besides the fact that he was dealing just with Western taboos of naked
> body and sexual act, not with Mohamed cartoons [2] at English
> Wikipedia, where he is the God King.
>
> If the Board stays behind such action, this is a very clear signal
> that Wikimedia projects are becoming censored. And if Jyllands-Posten
> Muhammad cartoons won't be deleted, then Wikimedia projects are a tool
> of Western cultural imperialism.
>
> I want to hear other Board members before making my decision about staying 
> here.

Since Jimmy is "special", for some reason, and his actions will not
face the consequences that is expected for common editors, admins,
bureaucrats, etc. I must say that images of Muhammad is not being
deleted *just because Jimmy is not Muslim*.

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, THURNER rupert
 wrote:

> i might be wrong, but wasn't it _very_ important to have a clear
> separation of concerns?

Whether or not this is legally important, it is socially essential.

> on the other hand, i consider jimbo trying it and proving that it
> finally fails  a brilliant idea and a very good case to prevent future
> legal actions against the wmf and the chapters :)

Now there's a thought...

SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[THURNER rupert]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 00:15, Ting Chen  wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engagement.
>
> Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope
> and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia,
> Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On
> Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also
> some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such
> basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one.
>
> Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational
> or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would
> probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board
> should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board
> made this statement.
>
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions.
> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my
> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the
> problem.
>
i might be wrong, but wasn't it _very_ important to have a clear
separation of concerns?

say, if the foundation or a chapter or one of its officers would be able to
change the contents of wikipedia by bypassing the established
community processes, even more so if it is done with an official board
voting:

would this not put _all_ the organisations and its officers in the
wiki*sphere at risk beeing sued by anybody not happy about the
contents of wikipedia - because jimbo proved that one can change the
contents via board resolution or "just like that"?

on the other hand, i consider jimbo trying it and proving that it
finally fails  a brilliant idea and a very good case to prevent future
legal actions against the wmf and the chapters :)

rupert.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>   
>> Wedrna, later:
>> 
>>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>>> The infrastructure would be technically simple.
>>>   
>> Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.
>> 
>
> To be specific, the technical infrastructure would involve parser
> functions which can apply ICRA tags to images, and can pass them
> through to the articles in question. It could be implemented with
> parser functions and the page_props table in an afternoon, taking no
> more than a week to tweak and review.
>
> If you want this functionality, you should look at implementing it, or
> you should lobby the Foundation to support it with staff developer
> time.
>
>   

Is there really a presumption that after straining at
a mouse -- trivial and clearly temporary -- limitations
of Jimbo's technical powers, with great gusto and
grand drama; the wikimedian community will kneel
down and swallow an elephant.

Content labeling is *HUGE*, much much much huger
than a temporary and correctible loss of a few files,
and a mild rebuke that Jimbo can live down and
rise from the ashes again, after a suitable time.

I will also state for the record that content labeling
is a bad bad bad idea.

Where on wiki have you set up a page consulting
the community on whether we want this humongous
change, so that I can go and voice my opposition?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>   

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator  wrote:
> > Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> > project.
> 
> The tolerance of sexual imagery on Wikimedia is a byproduct of Western
> liberal provincialism.  Putting sensitivity to the cultural attitudes
> of others above (thoroughly hypocritical) ideals of non-censorship is
> essential to Wikimedia's long-term success, and I'm glad to see that
> people are finally being forced to deal with this.

I would prefer those ideals to be applied non-hypocritically. Isn't the
whole concept of peacefully sharing knowledge (wikis) a byproduct of
"western liberal provincialism"? 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
>> have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
>> opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
>
>
> "deeply unfortunate" is, far too often, a codeword meaning "too bad,
> but we'll ignore them."

I think that Jimmy should ask them to back.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Gerard]

On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
> have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
> opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.


"deeply unfortunate" is, far too often, a codeword meaning "too bad,
but we'll ignore them."


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Gerard]

On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the 
> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at 
> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in 
> use by any project*.
> The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.
> You get the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion.


At this point it is because the issue of pornography has been
completely overshadowed by the issue of the actions taken and Board
support for them.

The pornography issue *cannot* be resolved until these other issues
are resoved. Cannot.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:14 AM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>> Wedrna, later:
 The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
 is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
 content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
 The infrastructure would be technically simple.
>>>
>>> Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.
>>
>> Our categorisation system is mentioned in any W3C Recommendation.
>
> is = isn't

I see what you mean.   SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andrew Garrett]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Wedrna, later:
>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>> The infrastructure would be technically simple.
>
> Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.

To be specific, the technical infrastructure would involve parser
functions which can apply ICRA tags to images, and can pass them
through to the articles in question. It could be implemented with
parser functions and the page_props table in an afternoon, taking no
more than a week to tweak and review.

If you want this functionality, you should look at implementing it, or
you should lobby the Foundation to support it with staff developer
time.

-- 
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[John Vandenberg]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Wedrna, later:
>>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>>> The infrastructure would be technically simple.
>>
>> Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.
>
> Our categorisation system is mentioned in any W3C Recommendation.

is = isn't

sorry.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[John Vandenberg]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Wedrna, later:
>> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
>> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
>> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
>> The infrastructure would be technically simple.
>
> Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.

Our categorisation system is mentioned in any W3C Recommendation.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

> Marcus wrote:
>> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
>> The _real_ task of the foundation.

Cimon wrote:
> "Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most
> persistently promoted by the same precise individual
> who began the "ethical breaching experiment" project

I wasn't thinking of privatemusings, but of Marcus's comment and the
recent comments on this bugzilla bug (about supporting ICRA):
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=982

Again, I'm generally opposed to this particular idea.  But Marcus is
right about the foundation's role in supporting technical solutions
where needed.  Community groups that need a well-defined technical
solution should ask boldly for it.

Wedrna, later:
> The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support
> is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the
> content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly.
> The infrastructure would be technically simple.

Yes.  Our categorization system already exists and should suffice.


David Levy writes:
> Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
> removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations
> from Wikimedia projects?  Less so.

True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.

SJ


Anthony writes:
> (BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?)

No, he gets an Instigator flag, enabling him to chiefly instigate an
argument with the Cunctator on any page.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the 
> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at 
> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in 
> use by any project*.
> The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.
> You get the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion.
> Andreas

I can't say I'm surprised.  The ham-handed way that Jimbo started the
"cleanup", and the resulting backlash, has effectively scuttled any
real progress on reducing the amount of non-educational sexual
material on Commons.  If similar incidents elsewhere are anything to
go by, it'll be two to three years before serious discussion of the
subject will be possible.

-- 
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andreas Kolbe]

> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>>   
>>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial 
>>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally 
>>> and it is OK. If for example nudity pictures is not a problem for Danish or 
>>> > French or Svedish Wikipedias - they can keep them locally... and the> 
>>> en-Wikipedia which is driven by anglo-saxon taboo of nudity can get rid of 
>>> them...
>>> 
>>
>> This is an elegant idea that might be worth pursuing, at least as >> an 
>> interim solution. Projects could be given ample warning that >> certain 
>> media files will be deleted at such and such a date, and >> that if any 
>> project is interested in them, they should transfer >> them to their own 
>> project space. >> Andreas
>
>
>   
> Without even commenting the idea itself, I have to ask:
> What in this context would you consider "ample
> warning"? One year, two years, more, less?
> Yours,> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2 months. Andreas


  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>   
>> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
>> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial 
>> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally 
>> and it is OK. If for example nudity pictures is not a problem for Danish or 
>> > French or Svedish Wikipedias - they can keep them locally... and the> 
>> en-Wikipedia which is driven by anglo-saxon taboo of nudity can get rid of 
>> them...
>> 
>
> This is an elegant idea that might be worth pursuing, at least as an interim 
> solution.Projects could be given ample warning that certain media files will 
> be deleted atsuch and such a date, and that if any project is interested in 
> them, they should transfer them to their own project space. 
> Andreas
>
>
>   
Without even commenting the idea itself, I have to ask:
What in this context would you consider "ample
warning"? One year, two years, more, less?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> Jimbo shouldn't be blamed for the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot.  For those
> particular deletions in which he exercised poor judgment, sure.  For
> wheel-warring over some of those instances, absolutely.  But ultimately, his
> actions (as opposed to the actions which were caused by the maintainer of
> CommonsDelinkerBot), are easily undone, at least from a technical
> standpoint.

As noted, the problem extends beyond the images delinked by the
CommonsDelinker bot.

In fact, I would argue that the bot actually mitigates the damage by
preemptively delinking images via an identifiable account (thereby
making the removals easier to detect and revert).

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Aryeh Gregor]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator  wrote:
> Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> project.

Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans.  Europe is at the extreme left on the global social scale,
along with a handful of other developed nations.  Americans are more
socially conservative than Europeans, but still more liberal than most
of the world.  There are 1.5 billion Muslims on Earth, for instance,
which is more than America and Europe *combined* (although many of
those Muslims are European or American).  The large majority of
Muslims would find these images grossly offensive.  So would many
others from *really* conservative cultures.  Americans are the least
of the story.

The tolerance of sexual imagery on Wikimedia is a byproduct of Western
liberal provincialism.  Putting sensitivity to the cultural attitudes
of others above (thoroughly hypocritical) ideals of non-censorship is
essential to Wikimedia's long-term success, and I'm glad to see that
people are finally being forced to deal with this.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:14 PM, David Levy  wrote:

> This assumes that...
>


> This is not always feasible...
>


> And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
> and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.
>


> Depending on the language, that isn't always an easy task.  And again,
> that assumes that a benefit exists and is apparent.
>

You seem to have missed my entire point.  I hope some others got it.  The
point is, the proper response to a deletion is situation-dependent.  Having
a bot make the fix is therefore a bad solution.

I'm surprised that hasn't been evident before now.

Jimbo shouldn't be blamed for the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot.  For those
particular deletions in which he exercised poor judgment, sure.  For
wheel-warring over some of those instances, absolutely.  But ultimately, his
actions (as opposed to the actions which were caused by the maintainer of
CommonsDelinkerBot), are easily undone, at least from a technical
standpoint.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andreas Kolbe]

Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the 
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at 
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in use 
by any project*.
The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support. 
You get the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion. 
Andreas

--- On Sun, 9/5/10, Anthony  wrote:

From: Anthony 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Date: Sunday, 9 May, 2010, 1:32

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, David Levy  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
>
> What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
> (thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?


Replacing it with a different image, removing the text from the article
which refers to the image, contacting someone at Commons to argue for
reinstatement of the image...

And yeah, uploading the missing image locally (thereby bypassing Commons)
would be another possibility.

All depends on the situation.  But fortunately, the human brain (unlike the
robot brain) is very flexible in dealing with a multitude of situations.


> And how do
> you expect editors who cannot read English (particularly those whose
> native languages are among the less widespread) to even understand why
> in-use images are being deleted?
>

Maybe by finding a translator?  Alternatively, they could employ one of the
possibilities listed above which don't involve speaking English at all.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> > > OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > > needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).

> > What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
> > (thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?

> Replacing it with a different image,

This assumes that a suitable alternative is readily available (which
likely isn't the case with many of the inappropriately deleted images,
including those that Jimbo wheel-warred over) and still entails
delinking the original image.

> removing the text from the article which refers to the image,

This is a highly undesirable outcome (and example of potential damage).

> contacting someone at Commons to argue for reinstatement of the image...

This is not always feasible (depending on one's native language) and
is futile when Jimbo intends to unilaterally overrule any such
decision.

Additionally, one might erroneously assume that the image was deleted
for a valid reason (e.g. copyright infringement).

> And yeah, uploading the missing image locally (thereby bypassing Commons)
> would be another possibility.

This is another highly undesirable outcome (and example of potential damage).

> All depends on the situation.  But fortunately, the human brain (unlike the
> robot brain) is very flexible in dealing with a multitude of situations.

And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.

> Maybe by finding a translator?

Depending on the language, that isn't always an easy task.  And again,
that assumes that a benefit exists and is apparent.

> Alternatively, they could employ one of the possibilities listed above
> which don't involve speaking English at all.

See above.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, David Levy  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).
>
> What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
> (thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?


Replacing it with a different image, removing the text from the article
which refers to the image, contacting someone at Commons to argue for
reinstatement of the image...

And yeah, uploading the missing image locally (thereby bypassing Commons)
would be another possibility.

All depends on the situation.  But fortunately, the human brain (unlike the
robot brain) is very flexible in dealing with a multitude of situations.


> And how do
> you expect editors who cannot read English (particularly those whose
> native languages are among the less widespread) to even understand why
> in-use images are being deleted?
>

Maybe by finding a translator?  Alternatively, they could employ one of the
possibilities listed above which don't involve speaking English at all.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
> non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial 
> pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally 
> and it is OK. If for example nudity pictures is not a problem for Danish or > 
> French or Svedish Wikipedias - they can keep them locally... and the> 
> en-Wikipedia which is driven by anglo-saxon taboo of nudity can get rid of 
> them...

This is an elegant idea that might be worth pursuing, at least as an interim 
solution.Projects could be given ample warning that certain media files will be 
deleted atsuch and such a date, and that if any project is interested in them, 
they should transfer them to their own project space. 
Andreas


  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Svip wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony  wrote:
>
>   
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>>>   
>> Huh?  What would that solve?
>> 
>
> Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not because it could
> appear 'controversial', but because it lacks... I dunno, humour?
> Comedy?
>
> But it raises a good point, however.  It perceives the concept of not
> dealing with a situation proportionally.
>
> 'Someone is misusing A' -> 'Let's make A illegal'.
>
> I would argue that this also sort of illustrates Wales' immediate
> behaviour.  'Bad press' -> 'Do something!'
>
> Ironically, I think the solution to this problem is status quo[...]
>   
No, it isn't!!! It's pink floyd.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
> is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons which was
> used on many other project for years is really hiting all those
> projects, not only Commons.

We're arguing the same thing.  :)


Anthony wrote:

> So fix commons-delinker.  Or shut it off altogether.

1. We don't usually have this problem, as Commons administrators
seldom go on controversial deletion sprees (and when they do, other
administrators aren't powerless to counter their actions).

2. Even without CommonsDelinker, editors at the various projects will
remove broken image transclusions when they discover them.

> OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).

What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
(thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?  And how do
you expect editors who cannot read English (particularly those whose
native languages are among the less widespread) to even understand why
in-use images are being deleted?

> And deletions are easily reversible.

I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread.

"Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
Wikimedia projects?  Less so."

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andreas Kolbe]

> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's 
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a 
> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the 
> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this 
> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of 
> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions. 
> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my 
> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the 
> problem.

Ting

I see no indication so far that the community *is* able to solve the problem. 

Andreas


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Svip]

On 9 May 2010 01:40, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
>> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>
> Huh?  What would that solve?

Considering this to be an ill conceived joke, not because it could
appear 'controversial', but because it lacks... I dunno, humour?
Comedy?

But it raises a good point, however.  It perceives the concept of not
dealing with a situation proportionally.

'Someone is misusing A' -> 'Let's make A illegal'.

I would argue that this also sort of illustrates Wales' immediate
behaviour.  'Bad press' -> 'Do something!'

Ironically, I think the solution to this problem is status quo.  But
no one will accept that solution.  That's what got this whole thing
started!

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> 2010/5/8 Anthony :
> > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> >> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> >> difficuilt to revert.
> >
> >
> > So fix commons-delinker.  Or shut it off altogether.
>
> Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
>

Huh?  What would that solve?


> Shuting down commons-delinker won't much help, as deleting the picture
> on Commons leave the red links on all those projects which were using
> the picutre.


OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
(which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).

And deletions are easily reversible.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2010/5/8 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
>> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
>> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
>> difficuilt to revert.
>
>
> So fix commons-delinker.  Or shut it off altogether.

Or shut off the Commons. That would be the ultimate solution :-)
Shuting down commons-delinker won't much help, as deleting the picture
on Commons leave the red links on all those projects which were using
the picutre. Thats the idea of Commons - to be the central repository
of multimedia files - which strikes back in an effect - that if you
delete something on Commons you hit not only Commons but also all
those projects which are using it.



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert.


So fix commons-delinker.  Or shut it off altogether.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2010/5/8 David Levy :
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our
>> developers do, at a much higher level.
>
> Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
> removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
> Wikimedia projects?  Less so.

Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons which was
used on many other project for years is really hiting all those
projects, not only Commons. The side effect of Jimbo action might be a
general move toward keeping pictures on local projects instead of
using Commons... Maybe we should have common-prolinker bot to work in
opposite way, after undeleting pictures?

The another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their
controversial pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use
pictures locally and it is OK. If for example nudity pictures is not a
problem for Danish or French or Svedish Wikipedias - they can keep
them locally... and the en-Wikipedia which is driven by anglo-saxon
taboo of nudity can get rid of them...


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Levy  wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our
>> developers do, at a much higher level.
>
> Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
> removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
> Wikimedia projects?  Less so.

Seconding this.

The deletion of images which are actively in use is _NOT_ easily
reversible.  It can require editing dozens or even hundreds of pages
in languages which you don't speak to completely undo the results of a
commons deletion.

This, combined with maintaining good relationships with the projects,
is why all commons admins are very careful about deleting images which
are actively in use.  Experienced commons admins all know this.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> Unlike those are are merely angry at him (and in some cases, lashing
> out in a nonconstructive manner), I'm truly disheartened.

"are are" = "who are"

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Samuel Klein wrote:

> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
> technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our
> developers do, at a much higher level.

Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
Wikimedia projects?  Less so.

> I'm not sure anyone has tried to address the role of developers
> through policy ;-)

If a developer were to engage in the type of behavior exhibited by Mr.
Wales, the resultant action would be swift and severe.

I've defended Jimbo in the past and even turned to him for guidance.
Unlike those are are merely angry at him (and in some cases, lashing
out in a nonconstructive manner), I'm truly disheartened.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Mike.lifeguard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
>> which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.
> 
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
> a much higher level.

The difference is that they don't use their access in ways that affect
the editor communities so directly. Sure, a software update might get
botched for a few minutes, or maybe some people don't like Vector so
much. But system administrators aren't deleting content en masse in
cases that are really *really* unclear. That's where the difference lies.

If Jimbo's going to be a figurehead, I think we can live with him having
essentially unlimited technical access on the wikis. If he's going to
actually use it, he needs a community mandate. Recall, he *didn't* found
all the wikis, and he *doesn't* edit most of them regularly. Recall that
English Wikipedia is in a special position (whether you think that is
good or bad) in that he actually did start that wiki, and he hangs
around the wiki sometimes. Not so for most of the Wikimedia universe. It
shouldn't be surprising that those other wikis are less tolerant of his
derisive attitude towards disagreements they may have with this actions
- - either the means or the ends.

- -Mike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvlgkwACgkQst0AR/DaKHsGmgCfd6apPpIOOMO1cm8+NFzH7Bso
y8AAn2aPD1mtzIGN6eEGwO4v6FkdDSEd
=/uxv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andrew Garrett]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett  wrote:
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
>> which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.
>
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
> a much higher level.

Perhaps I should have written "Exercised unlimited technical power".
I'm referring to the general idea that Jimmy does what he feels like,
and communities have no recourse except to the Foundation and to the
Board.

As you rightly point out, developers and staff have the same powers,
but none of us make a habit of using them deliberately for large-scale
content deletion.

-- 
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett 
> wrote:
> > This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
> > Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
> > trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
> > which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.
>
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
> a much higher level.
>

For what purpose?  The purpose for which the developers have this "technical
power" is obvious - they can't possibly do their work without it.  With
Wales, it's a power with no explicit purpose other than anachronistic
deference.

English Wikipedia has addressed this fluidly over the years:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales
>

So long as the power of the founder flag includes control over that very
page, anything written on that page can't possibly be taken seriously.

(BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:33:49AM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
> a much higher level.

3 points:
* Commons:
** Image deletion on commons is less flexible and reversible, while
the commons delinker bot is running (the normal state of affairs)
** Shutting down the commons delinker bot just to accomodate Jwales
disrupts a lot of other commons activity
* I am worried about the [[Founder Effect]], in the negative sense.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Marcus writes:
>
>   
>> I try to understand what happened...
>>
>>
>> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
>> 
> porn. [unaffirmed]
>
> He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.
>
>   
If you consider a false report to the FBI reasonably
characterised as "just made a lot of noise", sure.
>   
>> * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and
>> contacts many important companies that have donated money for
>> Wikimedia in the past whether they want to comment on the allegations.
>> [affirmed]
>> * The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on.
>> [unaffirmed]
>> 
>
> Mainly they contacted us to say "fyi, Fox wants to cause trouble".  It
> was clear what was going on.
>
>   
This is an important clarification, and I commend you for it.


> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Marcus Buck  wrote:
>
>   
>   
>> We had discussions on sexual content before. I proposed to use a
>> technical solution in which images are tagged with tags that give
>> detailed information about the form of explicit content present...
>>
>> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
>> The _real_ task of the foundation.
>> 
>
> Let's have a meaningful discussion about this over the coming weeks.
> I'm not sure how I feel about this -- my reflex is to be opposed to
> the idea of internal tagging beyond Categories -- but there's a lot of
> momentum around the idea, and if the community decides it is the right
> thing the do, the Foundation would certainly support creating such a
> solution.
>   

Not to disagree with your personal inclinations at all,
I just want to clarify a point of fact.

"Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most
persistently promoted by the same precise individual
who began the "ethical breaching experiment" project
on the English Wikiversity, and created the previous to
last wiki-fracas.

The suggestion has certainly been a perennial one,
Uwe Kils and his Wiki-Vikings may have been the
first one to down in flames. [[WP:TOBY]] (might
still survive as a historical page, and as a warning
to passersby.

These kind of schemes no matter how they are
flavored have always been soundly rejected by
the community. I am like "Buridans ass" stuck
between whether to refer to them as the "third
rail", or a "lead balloon".

If you however imply there is impetus to have
anything of this sort implemented on the
foundation side, my personal prediction
would be that it would be a train wreck
to make this current commons fracas
look like a leisurely picnic by the Seine.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Yann Forget]

Hello,

2010/5/8 Samuel Klein :
(...)
>> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
>> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
>> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
>> which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.
>
> I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
> power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
> a much higher level.

I beg to disagree. I don't see why Jimmy, as project founder, should
have  'unlimited technical power' on the projects, unless you think
that the community is not able to reach and implement decisions by
itself.

> English Wikipedia has addressed this fluidly over the years:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales

It is not because this worked on English WP up to now that it should
be the same on all WM projects.

> I'm not sure anyone has tried to address the role of developers
> through policy ;-)
>
> SJ

Regards,

Yann

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett  wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> How can you call this 'affirmed'?  Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
>> but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
>> policies.  The founder flag is an indication of respect, and provides
>> 'crat rights on all projects, but doesn't provide any more 'power'
>> over the project than any bureaucrat has.  The real power on wikis is
>> social, not technical -- and where there is a vacuum without local
>> consensus, Jimbo is often persuasive and effective at providing
>> guidance.  However once the community decides how to proceed, it
>> should do so with confidence.
>
> Let's talk about Jimmy's role, then. What happens now is that he has
> unlimited technical power over all projects, and everybody is of the
> impression that they are not permitted to remove or limit it, lest it
> be restored and their access similarly or more harshly curtailed.
> Community efforts to reverse actions taken by Jimmy with the
> assistance of his technical power have been immediately reversed by
> him without any further explanation, and occasionally threats or
> actual retaliation made against those reversing his actions.

You have a point, and threats and retaliation aren't helpful or
needful in such circumstances.  But where local communities persist,
reversions are often let stand, in my experience (and looking at some
of the recent image deletions on Commons).


> This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
> Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
> trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
> which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.

I don't think this is a technical issue at all.   Considering how
flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical
power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at
a much higher level.

English Wikipedia has addressed this fluidly over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales

I'm not sure anyone has tried to address the role of developers
through policy ;-)

SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Andrew Garrett]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> How can you call this 'affirmed'?  Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
> but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
> policies.  The founder flag is an indication of respect, and provides
> 'crat rights on all projects, but doesn't provide any more 'power'
> over the project than any bureaucrat has.  The real power on wikis is
> social, not technical -- and where there is a vacuum without local
> consensus, Jimbo is often persuasive and effective at providing
> guidance.  However once the community decides how to proceed, it
> should do so with confidence.

Let's talk about Jimmy's role, then. What happens now is that he has
unlimited technical power over all projects, and everybody is of the
impression that they are not permitted to remove or limit it, lest it
be restored and their access similarly or more harshly curtailed.
Community efforts to reverse actions taken by Jimmy with the
assistance of his technical power have been immediately reversed by
him without any further explanation, and occasionally threats or
actual retaliation made against those reversing his actions.

This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in
which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power.

-- 
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

Marcus writes:

> I try to understand what happened...
>
>
> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting
porn. [unaffirmed]

He just made a lot of noise, and some media picked it up.

> * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and
> contacts many important companies that have donated money for
> Wikimedia in the past whether they want to comment on the allegations.
> [affirmed]
> * The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on.
> [unaffirmed]

Mainly they contacted us to say "fyi, Fox wants to cause trouble".  It
was clear what was going on.

> * The board worries about losses in donations and either sends Jimbo to
> Commons or Jimbo unilaterally decides to handle the case. [unaffirmed]

We're doing well with donations, the vast majority of which come from
specific grants or small donors -- not likely to be affected by Fox.
(considering our supporter base, a major campaign by them might simply
raise more money.) We're not worried about that.  The drama on Commons
is related to people honestly being worried about the negative impact
of hosting uneducational but controversial media -- can a scare
campaign drive away good contributors?  are we already driving away
contributors, as Sydney Poore suggests, by creating an uncomfortable
atmosphere?

> * Without mentioning the previous developments Jimbo starts to delete
> all files that are "porn" (in his opinion, not sparing PD-old artworks
> etc.). Even engaging in edit-warring and ignoring input from the Commons
> community and ignoring community policies. [affirmed]
> * The Commons community condemns Jimbo's actions but has no power
> at all to stop the "Founder"-flagged berserk. [affirmed]

How can you call this 'affirmed'?  Jimbo has made strong suggestions,
but it is the Commons community that must create and enforce its own
policies.  The founder flag is an indication of respect, and provides
'crat rights on all projects, but doesn't provide any more 'power'
over the project than any bureaucrat has.  The real power on wikis is
social, not technical -- and where there is a vacuum without local
consensus, Jimbo is often persuasive and effective at providing
guidance.  However once the community decides how to proceed, it
should do so with confidence.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Marcus Buck  wrote:

> We do not need 10,000 close-ups of penises. But we need some penises.
> Small, medium, big, from different ethnicities, crooked, shaved and
> unshaved, with jewelry, with diseases etc. pp. We will never reach a
> state where the number of our penis images is low enough to make
> conservative agenda makers happy without leaving medical articles or
> articles on sexuality unillustrated (which would lower their
> informativeness and thus their educational value).

Right.

> We had discussions on sexual content before. I proposed to use a
> technical solution in which images are tagged with tags that give
> detailed information about the form of explicit content present...
>
> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation.
> The _real_ task of the foundation.

Let's have a meaningful discussion about this over the coming weeks.
I'm not sure how I feel about this -- my reflex is to be opposed to
the idea of internal tagging beyond Categories -- but there's a lot of
momentum around the idea, and if the community decides it is the right
thing the do, the Foundation would certainly support creating such a
solution.


SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

David,

This is an excellent list of principles, which I strongly support.

Projects generally have standards of notability, which is equivalent
to "significant" informative or educational value, otherwise they fill
up with cruft.  A lack of sufficient notability standards for media
not in use on any Project seems to be one of the issues in question on
Commons.

SJ

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>
> 1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
> sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value, and
> judges that by community decision in the relevant project
> 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
> 3. that if there is legal material that is objectionable to some
> people but that does have informative or educational value, the
> guiding principle is that we do not censor, and that the specific
> interpretation of that is guided by community decision in the relevant
> project.
> 4. That no individual whomsoever possesses ownership authority over
> any part of any WMF project.
> 5. That Commons acts as a common repository of free material for the
> various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The opinions of
> particular projects about what content there to use does not control
> the content, nor does the opinion of the commons community control
> other projects.
>
> How recent actions ca be judged in this light is to me obvious, but it
> is clear that some responsible opinions differ. I have expressed my
> own personal opinion elsewhere.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
>> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
>> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
>> really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
>>
>> The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship
>> with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is
>> preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue.
>> Thanks,
>>       GerardM
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
>>
>> On 7 May 2010 22:42, Amory Meltzer  wrote:
>>
>>> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
>>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>>> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
>>> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
>>> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>>>
>>> ~A
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Ting Chen wrote:

> it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
> opinion on the cases.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File:F%E9licien%20Rops%20-%20Sainte-Th%E9r%E8se.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File%3AFranz+von+Bayros+016.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File%3AWiki-fisting.png

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
>> to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
>> possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
>> about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully possible to sue
>> them in Germany or France.
>>
> Without being a lawyer I am very sure that any German court will reject
> such a sue because the court is not responsible (german: nicht
> zuständig). The accusation is not conducted in Germany and neither party
> is a legal person registered in Germany or German citizen.

Without being a lawyer, my point was: Find a way where and how to sue
Fox and Larry for making public lies about WMF, which in turn affects
its funds (and reputation) :)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ting Chen]

Hello Milos,

Milos Rancic wrote:
> By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
> to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
> possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
> about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully possible to sue
> them in Germany or France.
>   
Without being a lawyer I am very sure that any German court will reject 
such a sue because the court is not responsible (german: nicht 
zuständig). The accusation is not conducted in Germany and neither party 
is a legal person registered in Germany or German citizen.
> John Vandenberg proposed a good solution, involving Internet Content
> Rating Association [1] methods. It is in relation to your proposal.
> Please, consider it.
>   
Yes, considerations and discussions are in this or similar direction. 
Thank you very much for point it out to me / us.
> BTW, as mentioned before, Jimmy didn't make "some false decisions",
> but he made a small amount of right decisions and destroyed work of
> many volunteers. (There are complex problems related to recovering
> categorizations.)
>   
I am quite sure that there will be post mortems on the event, both in 
the community as well as in the board. My hope is that the most 
important thing is we endly move forward, and if there were damages done 
they get corrected again.

Greetings
Ting

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
> Hello Milos,
>
> At first to the two points you pointed out:
> * No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted
> and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually
> explicit. The criteria should be if it has educational value. This is
> what I said in my statement and this is what I think is correct. This is
> also what is in the statement of the board. And as far as I can say,
> this is what Jimmy's intention when he started the action. It is
> certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis. But
> just because as we all know that Jimmy make failures it does not prevent
> me to give him my full support in doing things.
> * Yes, I still think that this feature is correct. There are discussions
> inside of the board and different opinions about what such a feature
> should look like and if it is appropriate. The statement I made during
> the elections is my opinion, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion
> of all board members.
>
> To answer your question: We had scheduled for our April meeting the
> topic about project scope and community health / movement role.
> Unfortunately because of troubles caused by Eyjafjallajökull most of the
> trustees didn't managed to the meeting location. We had to held our
> meeting via phone and Skype and we had to reduce our schedule due to the
> inconvinience of the communication channel. We had dropped this topic
> because all trustees think that this is a topic that should be talked
> about at best face to face because all of us thought that we should give
> this topic the most possible attention we need.
>
> As far as I can say, especially the event pushed into movement by Larry
> Sanger [2] created the impression at least by some of the trustees that
> the matter is urgent and we need to take action as soon as possible.
> This is as said above from my perspective the reason for the action.
>
> Now the reason why I support this quick action: I personally would have
> preferred to have more time to work out a real guidance from the board
> to the community as to take such a quick action. As you know, I never
> think I am better than anyone else and I am always aware that my
> personal view is just a very narrow view. In this special case I cannot
> judge how urgent or serious the Larry Sanger accusation really is and
> what a threat it poses against the Foundation. I must trust my member
> trustees in the US that they can make that judgement. There are at least
> two trustees, one of them Jimmy, whom I know that they are normally more
> for a steady and consistant development, and whom I know that they have
> a very good sense for the community, who had put the issue as urgent.
> This is the reason why I think it is urgent.
>
> The rest I have already informed you. Jimmy informed the board that he
> want to do something and asked the board for support. I gave him my
> support because of what I said above.

Ting, thanks for reply. This one has much more sense than your and Jan
Bart's initial supports of Jimmy's action.

By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully possible to sue
them in Germany or France.

John Vandenberg proposed a good solution, involving Internet Content
Rating Association [1] methods. It is in relation to your proposal.
Please, consider it.

BTW, as mentioned before, Jimmy didn't make "some false decisions",
but he made a small amount of right decisions and destroyed work of
many volunteers. (There are complex problems related to recovering
categorizations.)

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Content_Rating_Association

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Gerard]

On 8 May 2010 11:17, Ting Chen  wrote:

> it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
> opinion on the cases.


They've been named in this thread repeatedly.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ting Chen]

Hello David,

it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my 
opinion on the cases.

I personally disagree with some of the decisions the Commons community 
made in the past, and I do think that in some cases Commons has a too 
broad definition for educational, and sometimes in my opinion Commons 
community has an interpretation of board resolutions that is not the 
same as I approved it [1]. I also think that Commons is not a free media 
repository like every other in the web. It has a mission, and this 
mission is the same as the mission of the Foundation. It was created to 
support other WMF projects so that not every free image used by the 
projects must be uploaded in every project, and this is its role inside 
of the WMF projects. If it do come to a clarification of the scope of 
Commons by the board my personal opinion is quite clear from my 
statements above.

Greetings
Ting

[1] - 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alan_dershowitz_by_Latuff.jpg_reopen

David Levy wrote:
> Ting Chen wrote:
>
>   
>> It is certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
>> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
>> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
>> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis.
>> 
>
> Errors are understandable, but Jimmy deliberately cast aside the
> reasoned views of the community's most trusted users by continually
> wheel-warring with a generic deletion summary (an extraordinarily
> disrespectful method).  Does this have your full support as well?
>
> David Levy
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>   


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Ting Chen wrote:

> It is certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis.

Errors are understandable, but Jimmy deliberately cast aside the
reasoned views of the community's most trusted users by continually
wheel-warring with a generic deletion summary (an extraordinarily
disrespectful method).  Does this have your full support as well?

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ting Chen]

Marcus Buck wrote:
> Ting Chen hett schreven:
>   
>> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's 
>> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a 
>> direction.
>> 
> Not my definition of a "soft push".
>
> In my opinion it's not the task of board or foundation to push the 
> community in any direction. It's the other way round, the community 
> forms board and foundation. The task of board and foundation is to 
> operate the servers, to develop the software needed to operate our 
> projects, and to stop members of the community or of the outside world 
> from doing things harmful to the community, e.g. by violating the law. 
> But they should not decide on the actual content, that's the task of the 
> community.
>   
I disagree with this. The Foundation has a mission, and the board has 
the duty to keep the Foundation, and the community on the rail for this 
mission.

The board had always pushed the community, sometimes more soft, 
sometimes more harsh.

In 2005 on the first Wikimania in Frankfurt the board called the 
community to take measure to improve the quality and reliability of 
Wikipedia. This is not the start of our quality offensive but it had 
trimendously strengthend the effort of the community.

The resolution of BLP is another example for the board to give guidance 
to the community in handling certain topics.

In many of our major projects we are facing declining new comer, the 
community is often regarded as harsh or even unfriendly to new comers. 
The board is trying to broaden our outreach and make our community and 
projects more welcome and more diverse.

These are all examples where the board push the community into certain 
directions.

> We do not need 10,000 close-ups of penises. But we need some penises. 
> Small, medium, big, from different ethnicities, crooked, shaved and 
> unshaved, with jewelry, with diseases etc. pp. We will never reach a 
> state where the number of our penis images is low enough to make 
> conservative agenda makers happy without leaving medical articles or 
> articles on sexuality unillustrated (which would lower their 
> informativeness and thus their educational value).
>   
What you wrote here is totally right, and this is also not the reason 
for the whole action. I wrote in my answer to Milos more detailed about 
the reason.

Greetings

-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ting Chen]

Hello Milos,

At first to the two points you pointed out:
* No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted 
and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually 
explicit. The criteria should be if it has educational value. This is 
what I said in my statement and this is what I think is correct. This is 
also what is in the statement of the board. And as far as I can say, 
this is what Jimmy's intention when he started the action. It is 
certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false 
decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't 
researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his 
criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis. But 
just because as we all know that Jimmy make failures it does not prevent 
me to give him my full support in doing things.
* Yes, I still think that this feature is correct. There are discussions 
inside of the board and different opinions about what such a feature 
should look like and if it is appropriate. The statement I made during 
the elections is my opinion, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion 
of all board members.

To answer your question: We had scheduled for our April meeting the 
topic about project scope and community health / movement role. 
Unfortunately because of troubles caused by Eyjafjallajökull most of the 
trustees didn't managed to the meeting location. We had to held our 
meeting via phone and Skype and we had to reduce our schedule due to the 
inconvinience of the communication channel. We had dropped this topic 
because all trustees think that this is a topic that should be talked 
about at best face to face because all of us thought that we should give 
this topic the most possible attention we need.

As far as I can say, especially the event pushed into movement by Larry 
Sanger [2] created the impression at least by some of the trustees that 
the matter is urgent and we need to take action as soon as possible. 
This is as said above from my perspective the reason for the action.

Now the reason why I support this quick action: I personally would have 
preferred to have more time to work out a real guidance from the board 
to the community as to take such a quick action. As you know, I never 
think I am better than anyone else and I am always aware that my 
personal view is just a very narrow view. In this special case I cannot 
judge how urgent or serious the Larry Sanger accusation really is and 
what a threat it poses against the Foundation. I must trust my member 
trustees in the US that they can make that judgement. There are at least 
two trustees, one of them Jimmy, whom I know that they are normally more 
for a steady and consistant development, and whom I know that they have 
a very good sense for the community, who had put the issue as urgent. 
This is the reason why I think it is urgent.

The rest I have already informed you. Jimmy informed the board that he 
want to do something and asked the board for support. I gave him my 
support because of what I said above.

Greetings
Ting

Milos Rancic wrote:
> Ting, this is your statement about sexually explicit content from the
> last elections [1]:
>
> "First of all I my position to this point had not changed since last
> year. I think content in Wikimedia projects should be educational,
> nothing more and nothing less. I think the communities of our major
> projects are meanwhile good enough to decide what is in scope and what
> not. This as overall principle.
>
> In most part of the world even pure educational content has some
> restriction of age, sometimes even per law. I think the Foundation
> should take this into account and give the community the possibility
> to act in accordance with the local laws if they decide to. From this
> point of view my suggestion is the following:
>
> The foundation should develop the MediaWiki software so that some
> content that are tagged with an age restriction would not be shown
> immediately if one comes to such an article. Only if the user confirms
> that he is above the age limit the content would be revealed. I
> believe this suggestion was already made by Erik a few years ago and I
> think we should do it.
> The board of trustees should issue a resolution in the form like the
> BPL resolution that announces the feature and call for the
> responsibility of the community to use this feature in accordance with
> the community consensus."
>
> I see here two things:
> * You didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted.
> * You said that it is Board's responsibility to create a feature, not
> any kind of community's responsibility [out of the scope of particular
> legal systems].
>
> In that sense, I want to ask you what did Board do except supporting
> Jimmy to delete many images of educational value?
>
> [1] - 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/Questions/1#Sexual_content_on_WMF
>

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[elisabeth bauer]

2010/5/8 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png
[...]
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de_Saint_Antoine.jpg
[...]
> And what would that be?
>
> I expect someone will be adding article content explaining the historical
> significance of each of these works.  If it's so horrible that they be
> deleted, it shouldn't be tough to add a paragraph or two which make it
> obvious why.

The paragraph is already there. It's called "File usage on other wikis".

greetings,
elian

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> Marcus Buck wrote:
> > Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> >
> >> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
> >> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> >> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
> >> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
> >> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
> >>
> >>
> > The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the
> > community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote,
> > and according to policies. Take e.g.
> > <
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png
> >.
> > That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing,  from an important
> > artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But
> > Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy
> > delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two
> > times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who
> > wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo
> > deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file
> > is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the
> > moment to overturn that decision.)
> >
> > I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and
> > why large parts of the Commons community are upset.
> Interestingly enough, the same caricatyrist still retains
> on teh commons another work (for the moment at least),
> which possibly many would find nearly as offensive, but
> is likely just about the perfectest metaphor for what is
> currently happening on Wikimedia Commons...
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de_Saint_Antoine.jpg
>

And what would that be?

I expect someone will be adding article content explaining the historical
significance of each of these works.  If it's so horrible that they be
deleted, it shouldn't be tough to add a paragraph or two which make it
obvious why.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Fred Bauder wrote:
> Yes, Category:Women facing left
>
> A caricature of a Catholic saint using a dildo but used on Wikipedias in
> 3 languages to illustrate the article "dildo". I'm not a student of
> Teresa of Ávila but it seems rather unlikely she did a lot of wanton
> stuff with dildos. Not that there would be anything wrong if she had, but
> we don't illustrate the articles of any number of women who might have
> used a dildo at some point in their lives in this way.
>
> In a word, the image is made up and quite offensive.
>
>
>   

It does present an interesting theoretical question though;
Saint Teresa did practise body mortification quite
enthusiastically.

Would it be okay to portray a religious person flagellating
themself on commons, considering that it isn't sexualized,
and apparently on the other hand, the strictest part of
Jimbos new "order of the day" seems to relate to BDSM
depictions on commons?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen





___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Marcus Buck wrote:
> Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
>   
>> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
>> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
>> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>>   
>> 
> The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the 
> community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote, 
> and according to policies. Take e.g. 
> .
>  
> That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing,  from an important 
> artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But 
> Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy 
> delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two 
> times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who 
> wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo 
> deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file 
> is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the 
> moment to overturn that decision.)
>
> I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and 
> why large parts of the Commons community are upset.
Interestingly enough, the same caricatyrist still retains
on teh commons another work (for the moment at least),
which possibly many would find nearly as offensive, but
is likely just about the perfectest metaphor for what is
currently happening on Wikimedia Commons...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de_Saint_Antoine.jpg


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
>> several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
>> almost every major language Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>   
>
> I confess I found a certain poignancy in reading the article
> on one of the victims.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adolphe_Bouguereau
>
> "Bouguereaus works were eagerly bought by
> American millionaires who considered him the most
> important French artist of that time. But after 1920,
> Bouguereau fell into disrepute, due in part to changing
> tastes and partly to his staunch opposition to the
> Impressionists who were finally gaining acceptance.
> *For decades following, his name was not even
> mentioned in encyclopedias.*"
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> How sad.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>

Apologies for replying to my own message, but that
was a false alarm. In this case the link was broken
because a better quality image had been uploaded
with a different name, apparently.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen





___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
> several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
> almost every major language Wikipedia.
>
>
>   

I confess I found a certain poignancy in reading the article
on one of the victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adolphe_Bouguereau

"Bouguereaus works were eagerly bought by
American millionaires who considered him the most
important French artist of that time. But after 1920,
Bouguereau fell into disrepute, due in part to changing
tastes and partly to his staunch opposition to the
Impressionists who were finally gaining acceptance.
*For decades following, his name was not even
mentioned in encyclopedias.*"

(emphasis mine)

How sad.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Amory Meltzer]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/thread.html

Everything is archived.

~Amory

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Noein]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

A technical and sincerely genuine question about this list. Is somebody,
some bot or some site synthesizing our emailed discussion, or is
everything vanishing as soon as it is spoken?
In this last case, shouldn't we keep an organized trace of the threads
to allow discussion and synthesis? How will we reach fair consensus for
complex and heated discussions otherwise? How do we plan on anger and
fatigue to sort it out?


On 07/05/2010 22:33, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> 
>> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>>
>> 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
>>
> 
> Legally contain according to what laws?
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5MK9AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LqAcH/jFyF7WcgpympPaliNi5toHV
J/BsH4WeA++e/5m/63b5jH+0mT410uPn+/i2HZaMLIjc8kztzOJTrhDvPeX3vl07
MAXG0Jp6SP7TnFLJx09QFzdaE/V/ItA0VU8qdIYe4TWq8z6EIfKNqpbgY3uTrGa0
HTG7CsoXk2MXYUgtXdT3ym0xAoPPL0FcLAMlHcqrPrRvgBY4kM8AM0rJknB313dF
3sD8dhgUsD7Gn2clCv+RJQQgGPOyRLc3sKAMc7Q48/ipr51WyneSNMGaHBrdE+3P
F1Ut3c+J60bIibVGZek8PEj+Ar5YZuX5cOayBesXX5VjuFJrczOQWdq2rZseBUk=
=L/5V
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>
> 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
>

Legally contain according to what laws?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Noein]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

This, my friends, beyond the porn debate, is an important lesson about
the vulnerability of wikipedia.
You just have to threaten or convince Mr. Wales to control or shutdown
the entire project. The whole community is powerless.
When this crisis is over, we should think about giving a stronger
autonomy to wikipedia. A project of this magnitude can no longer rest on
the shoulder of one man, depending on his good faith.
Wikipedia is making enemies (today: the prudes). One day they'll force
Mr. Wales to denature the project. Is it today? I don't know.
But don't be fooled about the appearances: the real crisis is not about
porn, but about who has control on the project and who has control on
these critical persons.

If this is an emergency situation requiring a justified, immediate,
unilateral, king-like massive action, I regret Mr. Wales didn't take the
time to explain the emergency to us.
By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of
the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their
beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other. This lack of
respect and of equality of vote should be extremely well argumented and
the reasons transparently communicated.
Otherwise, trust, faith and adhesion to the WMF values dissolve.
I don't think we should let this happen.

Mr. Wales, I hope you enter reason and dialogue realms again.
 We're not idiots who can't understand strategy. And by the way, if you
pretend to calm puritan donors in a first time, then try to reconquer
the lost ground later, you just surrendered the whole project to them by
showing that you will cede before their threat.
Maybe it is time to adopt a bold secularism (morally neutral, but still
respectful of humans)?

Anyway, will I, for one, accept the situation if you don't explain?
I would oppose any person pretending to dictate non-consensually how to
handle the human knowledge: it is part of the Humanity Heritage. But
you're the founder and I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are
having these very questions now. Is it good for the WMF that we're
asking them? Is it the consequence of Wales' bold actions? Is the board
voluntarily ignoring our legitimate feelings ?


On 07/05/2010 17:19, Marcus Buck wrote:
> I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces 
> that I found so far add up.
> 
> * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
> * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child 
> porn. [affirmed]
> * The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift action. [apparent]
> * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting 
> porn. [unaffirmed]
> * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and contacts 
> many important companies that have donated money for Wikimedia in the 
> past whether they want to comment on the allegations. [affirmed]
> * The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on. 
> [unaffirmed]
> * The board worries about losses in donations and either sends Jimbo to 
> Commons or Jimbo unilaterally decides to handle the case. [unaffirmed]
> * Without mentioning the previous developments Jimbo starts to delete 
> all files that are "porn" (in his opinion, not sparing PD-old artworks 
> etc.). Even engaging in edit-warring and ignoring input from the Commons 
> community and ignoring community policies. [affirmed]
> * The Commons community condemns Jimbo's actions but has no power at all 
> to stop the "Founder"-flagged berserk. [affirmed]
> 
> Is this the story? Or are there any story arcs that I missed? Please 
> correct me, wherever I am wrong.
> 
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5LdTAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LfGEIANYli6roFaZJOqXv5j/rvE3B
D/9B7VLzyEn86tkWYOACz+k+Ngj9mORGKwdVSDKYhwNdx/ek3SuW87lwp/l2ORhA
e16SsFbzPTTE0dDewvMfK2aEGjgPpK15AmV02Z3X12PeQJCO76fnjH9aKedBdvns
BZnk3hv53OSIq194bizkTk82GYWClc7wvXX6jnvc0dtOWEetm8PdM3D9q4Gpuzuh
Bgqa+mMx3WVOuUywRVGGQQMQ3L/xF4aisMHYgDP19rtnV9mNz4m4v8r9joGP7lP8
Bq2zEO8KeoTU5Yjb3sPLA66yz8vsJ0YCixhQIvP3Y+qGwETm84x3wr4Hbt7pOzQ=
=3wP0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Gregory Maxwell]

When I heard that Jimmy had taken an axe to explicit images on commons,
I thought it was good news as I've been frustrated and disappointed by
my own inability to convince the commons community that some things,
like the bulk copying of erotic imagery from flickr— hundreds of
images with little to no prospect of use in an article, was
inappropriate.

By in my first few clicks on Jimmy's deletion log I instantly found
several hundred year old works of art by artists who have articles in
almost every major language Wikipedia.

... and that these deletions were not just errors. When the images
were deleted by people operating under that impression, Jimmy
wheel-warred.   As an example of their maturity, I'm not aware
of any Commons Admin that undeleted a second time.

After seeing that went and viewed Jimmy's talk page, and the commentary
there was enough to dispel all hope I had of being able to support this
initiative.

I strongly recommend you read these sections yourself:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Franz_von_Bayros.3F


The "delete everything now, regardless of how long its been there, how widely
used, the fact that it's a 100 year old line drawing, and worry about
allowing some stuff later, maybe" approach seems maximally poisonous to me.

I've been guilty of it myself in the past, but I hope that I've learned
better by now...

I think Jimmy's conduct is alarming, disproportionate, and ill-considered.
I find it shocking that the board has chosen to explicitly support this
'wild west' approach.

I feel like our community is being dragged into a petty game of personal
one-upmanship between Larry Sanger and Jimmy.


On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engagement.
>
> Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope
> and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia,
> Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On
> Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also
> some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such
> basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one.

I hope the rest of the board will step forward and disclose their level of
support for Jimmy's actions. I think such disclosure will be relevant in
the communities decision to support the members in the future.

I don't see any reason why the board discussion on this topic should be
kept confidential.

Michael, Ting. Please consider this to be a request for the board to
release its entire discussion related to this subject so that the community
may better understand the basis for this sudden action against the
commons community.


I think a lot of people who have invested considerable effort into the
structure and operation of commons will be gravely offended by your
claim that Commons has "no such basic rules", for it most certainly
does— I know that your words hurt and offend me.

The point that commons governance has not managed a single area to your
liking can not be construed as evidence that commons is lawless.


> Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational
> or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would
> probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board
> should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board
> made this statement.

There is an enormous space of things strongly understood to be acceptable
by consensus, and at least some space understood to be unacceptable.

Then there is a area under which no clear consensus exists but under which
several carefully navigated compromises exist on Commons and the projects.

These compromises are not, in my opinion, anywhere near sufficient. But
they do exist and they are helpful.

The actions taken have disregarded both the area under clear consensus (e.g.
hundreds year old works of art by famous artists) as well as having
disregarded the area of compromise in the "no consensus" space.

For example, on many Wikipedia projects drawings (albeit rather detailed
ones) were used rather than sexually explicit photographs to illustrate
articles on specific sex acts. — The compromise being that there is a need
to use illustrations on these articles, just as we use illustrations on other
physical activities (like dancing) but that drawings could achieve the
informative purpose without being quite as likely to offend.

Unfortunately Jimmy unilateral removed the commons policy preferring the
illustrations:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&diff=prev&oldid=38893040

I think is incredibly unfortunate— it damages one of the things we've been
able to do, not just at commo

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Marcus Buck]

Ting Chen hett schreven:
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's 
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a 
> direction.
Not my definition of a "soft push".

In my opinion it's not the task of board or foundation to push the 
community in any direction. It's the other way round, the community 
forms board and foundation. The task of board and foundation is to 
operate the servers, to develop the software needed to operate our 
projects, and to stop members of the community or of the outside world 
from doing things harmful to the community, e.g. by violating the law. 
But they should not decide on the actual content, that's the task of the 
community.

If e.g. USC 2257 requires us to keep records, that would be okay to me. 
It would decimate our explicit content, but having content with clear 
provenance would be a nice advantage. But at the moment I see no 
rational reason like a law or anything like that. Just some vague 
"scope" that is inherently undefined and used to cover cleansings on 
moral grounds.

We do not need 10,000 close-ups of penises. But we need some penises. 
Small, medium, big, from different ethnicities, crooked, shaved and 
unshaved, with jewelry, with diseases etc. pp. We will never reach a 
state where the number of our penis images is low enough to make 
conservative agenda makers happy without leaving medical articles or 
articles on sexuality unillustrated (which would lower their 
informativeness and thus their educational value).

We had discussions on sexual content before. I proposed to use a 
technical solution in which images are tagged with tags that give 
detailed information about the form of explicit content present. The 
images could then be filtered by anybody who wants them to be filtered. 
That can be done on a per-user basis, but also on a per-project basis, 
or a per-country basis (based on IP geolocation). So if the people of 
the Kerguelen Islands don't want to see boobs and vagoos (or the 
government disallows showing them) a filter could be set to remove those 
images.

Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation. 
The _real_ task of the foundation.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There has been a need to address these things. Let us be clear, there is no
need for speedy deletions, there is time to have the ordinary deletion
process. Let us be equally clear that there is no room for business as usual
because not only have things gone bad and bans like the current Iranian one
are not addressed but also because the board of the WMF has clearly
indicated that things are out of kilter.

Consequently, it does not help at all to argue about if you like or dislike
the approach Jimmy has taken. He has clearly put this issue on the map and
that is good. When we want to stabilise the situation by having the standard
process, it has to be clear that the argument why something is to be kept
has to be clear and strong. Nudity is in and of itself not an issue. The
nature and the volume of many subjects is.

What is needed is are criteria and they have to include the amount of images
we need for the subjects under discussion. As I argued on my blog, a Maroon
with a loincloth should not even feature in the category "nudity".
Thanks,
   GerardM

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com

On 8 May 2010 00:33, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen  wrote:
> > For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> > effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> > direction.
>
> The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
> It's a whack across the head with a spiked club, by someone who
> doesn't have good aim.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[en:User:Carnildo]]
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen  wrote:
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction.

The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
It's a whack across the head with a spiked club, by someone who
doesn't have good aim.

-- 
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
> What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about
> his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other
> board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I
> fully support his engagement.
>
> Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope
> and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia,
> Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On
> Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also
> some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such
> basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one.
>
> Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational
> or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would
> probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board
> should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board
> made this statement.
>
> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions.
> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my
> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the
> problem.
>
> Ting
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to point you to:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
>>>
>>
>> My interpretation of that is that Jimmy's unilateral deletions are not
>> done with the support of the rest of the board, since the email talks
>> about encouraging the community to deal with the problem. Is that
>> correct?
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Ting, this is your statement about sexually explicit content from the
last elections [1]:

"First of all I my position to this point had not changed since last
year. I think content in Wikimedia projects should be educational,
nothing more and nothing less. I think the communities of our major
projects are meanwhile good enough to decide what is in scope and what
not. This as overall principle.

In most part of the world even pure educational content has some
restriction of age, sometimes even per law. I think the Foundation
should take this into account and give the community the possibility
to act in accordance with the local laws if they decide to. From this
point of view my suggestion is the following:

The foundation should develop the MediaWiki software so that some
content that are tagged with an age restriction would not be shown
immediately if one comes to such an article. Only if the user confirms
that he is above the age limit the content would be revealed. I
believe this suggestion was already made by Erik a few years ago and I
think we should do it.
The board of trustees should issue a resolution in the form like the
BPL resolution that announces the feature and call for the
responsibility of the community to use this feature in accordance with
the community consensus."

I see here two things:
* You didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted.
* You said that it is Board's responsibility to create a feature, not
any kind of community's responsibility [out of the scope of particular
legal systems].

In that sense, I want to ask you what did Board do except supporting
Jimmy to delete many images of educational value?

[1] - 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/Questions/1#Sexual_content_on_WMF

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 06:21:38PM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
> Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
> for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.
> 

MZMcBride: You could re-state that in a more positive way:

We are happy that some initiative is being taken. We would like 
to contribute to ensuring that the initiative will actually
be successful and bear fruit. 


btw, congratulations, I think I just volunteered you. ;-)

Read you soon,
Kim Bruning

-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[MZMcBride]

Doing something good in the worst possible way. Is this not completely par
for the course for Wikimedia? Few people should be surprised.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Ting Chen]

What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about 
his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other 
board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I 
fully support his engagement.

Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope 
and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia, 
Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On 
Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also 
some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such 
basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one.

Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational 
or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would 
probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board 
should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board 
made this statement.

For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's 
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a 
direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the 
board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this 
topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of 
foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions. 
If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my 
believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the 
problem.

Ting

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to point you to:
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
>> 
>
> My interpretation of that is that Jimmy's unilateral deletions are not
> done with the support of the rest of the board, since the email talks
> about encouraging the community to deal with the problem. Is that
> correct?
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>   


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> I don't actually see what the problem is necessarily in deleting it.
> It's called editorial judgment, and as I have been telling people for
> years and years on Wikipedia, editorial judgment =/= censorship. You
> may write the most awesome novel to ever have been written, but that
> doesn't mean it's fit for Wikipedia. Similarly, you may have the most
> righteous CC-BY pictures of naked people or your birthday party or
> your neighbor's cat or whatever, but that doesn't mean any of it needs
> to go -- or should go -- in Commons.

Phoebe, of ~10 deleted images which I opened, statistics is around:
* 4 cartoons which represents different sexual acts (made for
illustration of sexual acts in Wikipedia articles)
* 2 naked women (porn stars)
* 1 naked man
* 1 Second Life sexual act
* 1 Second Life commercial (I suppose so)
* 1 art work

Just the naked man could be from "personal collection", while it was
obviously that photo was made carefully, not to fully show face, but
to show body for educational purposes.

>From this group, only Second Life sexual act is useless. Even
commercial has historiographical value. Naked man and women are
probably redundant, but there are a lot of redundant images all over
the Wikimedia projects.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Victor Vasiliev]

It's another time we have a problem which would hypothetically fall
into the scope of some "global arbcom", but since it does not exist,
I'm still not sure there's the correct way to handle such situations.
I hope that Jimbo and Board will be able to make things settle down.
Petition [1] seems to be a variant too, though I was told it does not
work well.

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[phoebe ayers]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:18 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
>
> 1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
> sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value,

Maybe we need a new motto for Commons: "just 'cause it's free, doesn't
mean it's good."

Given that:
a) commons is not a host for people's personal photo collections
b) some of the pr0nz is obviously part of a personal collection

I don't actually see what the problem is necessarily in deleting it.
It's called editorial judgment, and as I have been telling people for
years and years on Wikipedia, editorial judgment =/= censorship. You
may write the most awesome novel to ever have been written, but that
doesn't mean it's fit for Wikipedia. Similarly, you may have the most
righteous CC-BY pictures of naked people or your birthday party or
your neighbor's cat or whatever, but that doesn't mean any of it needs
to go -- or should go -- in Commons.

I know, I know, my whitebread American puritan morals (ha!) shouldn't
affect the sacred contents of the Commons, but seriously, no one
objects when I edit articles to uphold the long-held editorial
standards of Wikipedia, and I try hard to be NPOV when I edit there.
Similarly, I think it is entirely possible to consider issues such as
duplicative content, educational value, purpose of the image, use in
the projects, technical quality, etc. and come to a very reasonable
conclusion that not everything belongs in Commons and it needs a good
weeding. We are not, after all, the interweb's fileserver for
whatever.

This is an entirely separate issue from whether Jimmy went about being
bold in the correct manner, and it would probably be helpful to
remember that. As a strict *user* of commons, rather than a
contributor, I would personally like to have less junk to wade through
when trying to find pictures of something!

-- phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Fred Bauder]

Yes, Category:Women facing left

A caricature of a Catholic saint using a dildo but used on Wikipedias in
3 languages to illustrate the article "dildo". I'm not a student of
Teresa of Ávila but it seems rather unlikely she did a lot of wanton
stuff with dildos. Not that there would be anything wrong if she had, but
we don't illustrate the articles of any number of women who might have
used a dildo at some point in their lives in this way.

In a word, the image is made up and quite offensive.

Fred Bauder

> The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the
> community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote,
> and according to policies. Take e.g.
> .
> That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing,  from an important
> artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But
> Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy
> delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two
> times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who
> wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo
> deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file
> is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the
> moment to overturn that decision.)
>
> I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and
> why large parts of the Commons community are upset.
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Rui Correia]

I am sure there are many people with far better understanding and knowledge
of the rules and inner workings of the project.

However, for the benefit of those who have never come across funny stuff,
these photos have been the a strong subject of edit warring by pt_wikipedia
editors. The editor added them claiming that as a porn star, these images
illustrate the kind of work that she engages in.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruna_Ferraz_3.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruna_Ferraz_2.jpg

These have been removed, but you still get to them through google and they
are clearly labelled as commons.wikimedia.

The photo on the Wikipedia is quite different
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruna_Ferraz

Regards,

Rui

On 7 May 2010 20:23, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> As some of you may know, Jimbo has recently used his standing in the
> community to dictate that Commons should not host porn. [1][2][3]  He
> has interpreted this to include a wide swath of images both
> photographic and illustrative, and both contemporary and historical.
>
> In principle, I agree that having a stricter policy on sexual images
> is a good thing, but fundamentally we need to have a clear policy on
> what should be allowed and what shouldn't.  Attempts to write one [4]
> have become a moving target that leaves us without a functional policy
> or community consensus.  Initially, this was based on the
> characteristics of the USC 2257 record keeping laws, but Jimbo has
> gone beyond this by deleting non-photographic and historical works
> that would not be covered by 2257.
>
> In essence, right now Jimbo is deleting things based on his singular
> judgment about what should be allowed. [5]
>
> These deletions have continued with little apparent concern for
> whether or not an image is currently in use by any of the projects.
>
> This is a large change and lack of a clear policy creates a very
> confusing and frustrating environment for editors.  (Multiple Commons
> admins have already stated their intention to resign and/or retire
> over this.)
>
> Again, I agree that tighter controls on sexual images are generally a
> good thing, but I believe the abruptness, lack of clear policy, and
> lack of a consensus based approach is creating an unnecessarily
> disruptive environment.  Much of the content has been hosted by
> Wikimedia for years, so do we really have to delete it all, right now?
>  Can we not take a week or two to articulate to boundaries of what
> should be deleted and what should be kept?
>
> In general, I would ask that things slow down until some sort of a
> clear policy can be created (either by the community or the WMF /
> Board).  This is especially true when it comes to deleting images that
> are in use on the various Wikipedias.  (Such deletions have already
> been widespread).
>
> I would also like to ask whether either the WMF or the Board plans to
> intervene?  Because of Jimbo's historical standing and technical
> access, the Commons community is largely impotent to stop him.
> Multiple requests by the community that things slow down or a clear
> policy be crafted prior to mass deletions have thus far been
> ineffective.
>
> At the very least it would be helpful if the WMF and/or Board would
> express a position on the appropriate use of sexual content?
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
> [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Cleanup_policy
> (and following sections)
> [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
> [4] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
> [5]
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Jimbo+Wales
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 



Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
___
áâãçéêíóôõúç
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Goodman]

Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:

1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value, and
judges that by community decision in the relevant project
2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
3. that if there is legal material that is objectionable to some
people but that does have informative or educational value, the
guiding principle is that we do not censor, and that the specific
interpretation of that is guided by community decision in the relevant
project.
4. That no individual whomsoever possesses ownership authority over
any part of any WMF project.
5. That Commons acts as a common repository of free material for the
various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The opinions of
particular projects about what content there to use does not control
the content, nor does the opinion of the commons community control
other projects.

How recent actions ca be judged in this light is to me obvious, but it
is clear that some responsible opinions differ. I have expressed my
own personal opinion elsewhere.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
> really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
>
> The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship
> with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is
> preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
>
> On 7 May 2010 22:42, Amory Meltzer  wrote:
>
>> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
>> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
>> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>>
>> ~A
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Marcus Buck]

Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> If you're
> looking to masturbate, Commons is among the best, most available, and
> easiest to navigate sources of material there is

You really do think that? Write me off-list and I'll send you a list of 
pages that will greatly improve masturbation sessions! It will be a 
total explosion if you are used to masturbate to Commons material!

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Benjamin Lees]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:

> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>
> ~A
>
>

It's rather unfortunate that Jimbo went beyond deleting low-quality
photographs of penises and deleted what are obviously works of art or
educational illustrations.  Had he stuck to the former, he would
have had the support of a lot of people who are now upset.  If he were to
admit that it was a mistake to delete things that weren't clearly at the
bottom of the barrel (rather than wheel-warring over them!), it would go a
long way toward showing that this actually is about improving the quality of
the project and not about PR or appeasing donors.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We apparently disagree on this. The ban of the complete Wikimedia domain
from Iran happened some time ago and nothing was considered. This issue has
been raised several times and the amount of content that is inappropriate
because it adds nothing to what is already there is high.

Let me be clear, there is a need for many explicit images. I have added many
explicit images and there are sound reasons for that material. Consequently
I do not expect them to be an issue. What we need is an appropriate amount
of material that illustrate our more contentious subjects well and that are
neither gross nor of low quality nor illegal.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 7 May 2010 22:59, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> > Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images
> that
> > should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged,
> we
> > really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
>
> Consideration is good. Unilateral action with no authority is not.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Marcus Buck]

Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>   
The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the 
community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote, 
and according to policies. Take e.g. 
.
 
That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing,  from an important 
artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But 
Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy 
delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two 
times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who 
wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo 
deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file 
is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the 
moment to overturn that decision.)

I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and 
why large parts of the Commons community are upset.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Amory Meltzer]

It still works, it's just harder.  And I'm totally with you on the
second point.  Jimmy got a needed process started.  Could he have
started it a different, less dramatic way?  Probably.  Would that have
been better?  Probably.  As effective?  Probably not.  If you're
looking to masturbate, Commons is among the best, most available, and
easiest to navigate sources of material there is - the community can
fix that and decide as a whole what to do, and should, but maybe Jimmy
is playing the maverick and providing a giant leap toward that
discussion.

~A



On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 16:52, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> 1) That argument doesn't apply to old artwork. 2) It is for the
> community to decide what is and isn't educational, not Jimmy. (The
> board acting collectively could overrule the community, but they don't
> seem to have done that.)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[geni]

On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
> really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
>
> The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship
> with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is
> preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
>

Given  the statement would require the deletion of 99% of userpages I
think it is best ignored.



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Thomas Dalton]

On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
> really have to consider how we deal with this issue.

Consideration is good. Unilateral action with no authority is not.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
really have to consider how we deal with this issue.

The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship
with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is
preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue.
Thanks,
   GerardM

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html

On 7 May 2010 22:42, Amory Meltzer  wrote:

> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>
> ~A
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Thomas Dalton]

On 7 May 2010 21:42, Amory Meltzer  wrote:
> This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
> of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
> either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.

1) That argument doesn't apply to old artwork. 2) It is for the
community to decide what is and isn't educational, not Jimmy. (The
board acting collectively could overrule the community, but they don't
seem to have done that.)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Amory Meltzer]

This is nuts.  Literally, nothing has changed.  Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation.  We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
either.  Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.

~A

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Huib Laurens]

But how should we see Jimbo's actions?

Jimbo isn't a administrator on Commons, the community didn't vote about his
adminship so he is using the Founder flag.

That he can use the Founder flag for doing his thing we can see this as a
staff / board action?

Best regards,

-- 
Huib "Abigor" Laurens

Tech team
www.wikiweet.nl - www.llamadawiki.nl - www.forgotten-beauty.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[The Cunctator]

Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project. To be expected, though.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the
> Common's
> discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic
> planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I
> became acutely aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF
> readers and editors. As I considered the topic, I came to the conclusion
> that WMF hosting an unlimited amount of sexually explicit content could be
> "one" of the barriers for WMF being more diverse.
>
> The manner that we display nudity and sexually explicit content makes it
> difficult to avoid. Currently, our policies and practices do not allow for
> special care when displaying the content (for deletion discussion,
> categorizing, or links to our sister projects, ...). So, people may
> unexpectedly see it. In my opinion, the current approach to managing the
> content is insensitive to many people in the world of many nationalities
> and
> religions, and people that access WFM projects through settings where
> sexually explicit content is inappropriate or not allowed. So, I see a
> policy that better manages the content as potentially making WMF projects
> open to more users.
>
> I support the clean up effort by Jimmy and the administrators on Commons
> for
> the images that have no significant educational value. I also understand
> that to some editors who are new to thinking about the issue that this may
> seem abrupt. So, I encourage good communication between all the
> stakeholders
> so that we can understand each others concerns and address them.
>
> I'm also hopeful that technical solutions will be implemented and will
> resolve the concerns about hosting images that have an educational
> value.but
> are not appropriate for all readers in all settings.
>
> Sydney Poore
> (FloNight)
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede  >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and
> > that the board statement is in support of both his and the other
> > administrators who have taken the initiative to clean up commons.
> >
> > Also, I would refer you to Jimmy's talk page on commons, as there is an
> > active discussion going on there.
> >
> > Jan-Bart de Vreede
> > Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > On 7 mei 2010, at 21:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to point you to:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
> > >
> > > My interpretation of that is that Jimmy's unilateral deletions are not
> > > done with the support of the rest of the board, since the email talks
> > > about encouraging the community to deal with the problem. Is that
> > > correct?
> > >
> > > ___
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Marcus Buck]

I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces 
that I found so far add up.

* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child 
porn. [affirmed]
* The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift action. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting 
porn. [unaffirmed]
* The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and contacts 
many important companies that have donated money for Wikimedia in the 
past whether they want to comment on the allegations. [affirmed]
* The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on. 
[unaffirmed]
* The board worries about losses in donations and either sends Jimbo to 
Commons or Jimbo unilaterally decides to handle the case. [unaffirmed]
* Without mentioning the previous developments Jimbo starts to delete 
all files that are "porn" (in his opinion, not sparing PD-old artworks 
etc.). Even engaging in edit-warring and ignoring input from the Commons 
community and ignoring community policies. [affirmed]
* The Commons community condemns Jimbo's actions but has no power at all 
to stop the "Founder"-flagged berserk. [affirmed]

Is this the story? Or are there any story arcs that I missed? Please 
correct me, wherever I am wrong.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Sydney Poore]

The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the Common's
discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic
planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I
became acutely aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF
readers and editors. As I considered the topic, I came to the conclusion
that WMF hosting an unlimited amount of sexually explicit content could be
"one" of the barriers for WMF being more diverse.

The manner that we display nudity and sexually explicit content makes it
difficult to avoid. Currently, our policies and practices do not allow for
special care when displaying the content (for deletion discussion,
categorizing, or links to our sister projects, ...). So, people may
unexpectedly see it. In my opinion, the current approach to managing the
content is insensitive to many people in the world of many nationalities and
religions, and people that access WFM projects through settings where
sexually explicit content is inappropriate or not allowed. So, I see a
policy that better manages the content as potentially making WMF projects
open to more users.

I support the clean up effort by Jimmy and the administrators on Commons for
the images that have no significant educational value. I also understand
that to some editors who are new to thinking about the issue that this may
seem abrupt. So, I encourage good communication between all the stakeholders
so that we can understand each others concerns and address them.

I'm also hopeful that technical solutions will be implemented and will
resolve the concerns about hosting images that have an educational value.but
are not appropriate for all readers in all settings.

Sydney Poore
(FloNight)

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and
> that the board statement is in support of both his and the other
> administrators who have taken the initiative to clean up commons.
>
> Also, I would refer you to Jimmy's talk page on commons, as there is an
> active discussion going on there.
>
> Jan-Bart de Vreede
> Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On 7 mei 2010, at 21:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > On 7 May 2010 20:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to point you to:
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html
> >
> > My interpretation of that is that Jimmy's unilateral deletions are not
> > done with the support of the rest of the board, since the email talks
> > about encouraging the community to deal with the problem. Is that
> > correct?
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l