On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudhe...@x-mail.net>wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 02:43, Sarah Stierch wrote: > > > One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no "solidity" when it > comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken, > changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem. > > > Absolutely. I think in this case the real troublemaker is the admin, and > the original poster is almost an innocent boy trying to post something he > deems erotic or daring. By the admin's behaviour we see that the original > poster is almost encouraged to behave like a bad little boy. > > It is obvious that a photo of the vulva should show the vulva. If the admin > doesn't understand that then he is hopeless and must go back to highschool > for several years. He is certainly not scientifically literate enough to > hold a position on Wikipedia. > I agree that this image had many problems and keeping it does not really make sense. That is the reason that I asked the admin to review his decision. > > You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that a photo > of an organ must show the organ. > > You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that photos > of anatomy should be as devoid of erotic content as possible. > > Democracy should not go that far as to negociate with total incompetence. > > Either this admin is really stupid, and should never have made it to his > position in WP, or he is being perverse with the vulva page. > > If find it very difficult to believe that a person literate enough to make > it to the position of admin on WP would be illiterate enough to not > understand that a photo named vulva in the vulva page should show a vulva, > and should avoid evocation of private life promiscuity. > I know this administrators work on several projects, and I don't think that is an accurate description of his work in general. He regularly closes deletion discussions, and will close them for deletion about sexual content as he did in some of the other ones put up for deletion recently. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April_after_!st_act.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hairpenis.jpg The reason that I see the issue with controversial content as a problem of systemic biasis that is that it has taken hold of WMF projects in general. If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general. IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site. Sydney > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
