I am amazed by the Keep votes the various deletion requests for images in the BDSM gallery -- files that are not actually used by any project -- are getting.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/08#May_8 Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual activity" in BDSM images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are not pornographic. Andreas --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Sydney Poore <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Sydney Poore <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates > To: [email protected], "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, 8 May, 2010, 17:27 > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike > Godwin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf > of the Foundation but > > instead as a longtime participant in online > communities who has worked > > extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my > perspective on a couple of > > themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first > is the claim that > > Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a > threat by Fox News > > (and that this threat was somehow small or > insignificant). The second is > > the > > idea that the proper focus of the current discussion > ought to be focused on > > Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or > against particular > > aspects of the actions he took) to the effective > exclusion of discussion of > > whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, > refined, or better > > implemented. > > > > First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox > News is not a > > responsible news organization. This means that they > get too many stories > > wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically > echo Larry Sanger's > > uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it > also means that when > > their mistakes are brought to their attention, they > may redouble their > > aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating > their original story. > > This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its > reporter and her editors) > > were trying to do. If the media culture in the United > States were such that > > Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could > probably just ignore it. > > But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox > News does manage to > > infect other media coverage in ways that are > destructive to good people and > > to good projects. > > > > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been > better for Fox to > > have gone with the original story they were trying to > create rather than > > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. > Jimmy's decision to > > intervene changed the narrative they were attempting > to create. So even if > > you disagree with some or all of the particulars of > Jimmy's actions, you > > may > > still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a > whole, created > > breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons > that even many of > > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. > > > > The question then becomes whether we're doing to > discuss the issues of > > Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions > themselves signify a > > problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we > can discuss both, and > > technically you'd be right, but the reality of human > discourse is that if > > you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be > discussing Commons > > policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons > policy. My personal > > opinion is that this would be the waste of an > opportunity. > > > > I think it's also worth remembering that when an > individual like Jimmy is > > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in > extraordinary > > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any > use of those powers > > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, > nobody would need > > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems > quickly and > > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your > disagreement with the > > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's > powers should be removed, > > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this > abrupt intervention as an > > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its > implementation can be > > improved in a way that brings it more into line with > the Wikimedia > > projects' > > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not > surprise me if the > > result turned out to be that some of the material > deleted by Jimmy will be > > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's > approval in many cases. > > > > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered > a healthy debate > > about > > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions > -- not individually > > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. > (Like many of you, I > > would probably disagree with some of his particular > decisions, but I > > recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular > decisions.) It is not > > the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes > in projects these days > > -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from > intervening, which is as it > > should be, and which I think speaks well of his > restraint. It should be > > kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was > aimed at protecting > > our > > projects from external threat and coercion, precisely > to give breathing > > space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes > that we all value and > > believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I > hope that rather > > than > > venting and raging about what was done in the face of > an imminent and > > vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking > discussion of how things > > can be made better. This discussion is best focused on > policy, and not on > > Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent > efforts to protect the > > Wikimedia projects and movement. That's where our > efforts should be focused > > too. > > > > > > > > --Mike > > > > I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment. > > The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that > Community > discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the > issue. And that "not > censored" should not be used to halt discussions about the > way to manage > content. > > The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has > brought much needed > attention to a long standing problem. Now is the time for > the Community to > focus on cleaning up Commons and writing a sensible policy > about managing > sexual content. > > Sydney Poore > (FloNight) > _______________________________________________ > 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
