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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] > >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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I would like to point you to: > > >> > > >> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/000008.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 > > > [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
