Hi, I would like to point you to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/000008.html Jan-Bart de Vreede Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation On 7 mei 2010, at 21:23, 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
