[Foundation-l] Jay Walsh's statement
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/clarifying-recent-coverage-of-wikipedia/ With respect, the work on the Sexual Content proposal as pretty much thrown out all of Jimbo's work, and is proceeding from a direction more consistent with the values of Commons. To say that Jimmy is actively engaged in discussions with other Wikimedia editors about sexually-explicit materials on Wikimedia Commons. is highly misleading: He has not been involved with this process since the attempted purge. Further: and although the discussions over the past week have been unusually intense, we don’t consider them problematic. Discussion is how Wikimedians work through policy development and policy interpretation: active argument and debate are normal for us — they are how we do our work. The Wikimedia Foundation is grateful for Jimmy’s involvement, and we’re glad he continues to be an important part of the Wikimedia movement. Actually, Jimbo was highly disruptive, edit-warred to force artworks to be included in the list of material to delete, threatened people, and no progress was or could be made until he left it to us volunteers. -Adam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jay Walsh's statement
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Adam Cuerden cuer...@gmail.com wrote: With respect, the work on the Sexual Content proposal as pretty much thrown out all of Jimbo's work, and is proceeding from a direction [snip] You're linking to something from May 17th. It would be much more productive to focus on matters which are current rather than sub-issues which are weeks cold. I urge everyone to just let this particular thread of discussion die. There are enough important battles to fight _currently_ that we really don't need to keep awakening discussion-zombies to keep us busy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jay Walsh's statement
Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Adam Cuerden cuer...@gmail.com wrote: With respect, the work on the Sexual Content proposal as pretty much thrown out all of Jimbo's work, and is proceeding from a direction [snip] You're linking to something from May 17th. It would be much more productive to focus on matters which are current rather than sub-issues which are weeks cold. I urge everyone to just let this particular thread of discussion die. There are enough important battles to fight _currently_ that we really don't need to keep awakening discussion-zombies to keep us busy. +1 Not even beating a dead horse, but beating glue. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
