[Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit

[Aphaia]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo?

Well, at least it is helpful for foreign readers to some extent to
have an illustration,

 File:Franz von Bayros
> 016.jpg is more or less art, but File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png
> which is used on three Wikipedias to illustrate the use of a dildo has
> some real problems with being offensive to Catholics (Of course Japanese
> or Chinese Catholics don't matter, but they do).

but, as a Japanese and orthodox-church goer, so more or less out of
conflict of interest, I agree it is unnecessarily offensive to create
such images. Just for illustration in general, it wasn't necessary to
render an existing figure.

Of course, I don't support to delete artworks specially hundred older
ones as porns, used on projects for illustration in particular.

>. Much better to use a
> photo of the woman using a dildo or at least an eye-witness report
> published in a reliable source. The image could, of course, be used
> appropriately to illustrate an article on caricatures or something about
> anti-catholicism.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>> The foundation appears to be of the impression that Jimbo is merely
>> attempting to encourage scrutiny, and removing clear cases.
>>
>> This is not true. Jimbo has speedy deleted, without discussion,
>> historical
>> artworks and diagrams, often edit warring with admins to keep them
>> deleted,
>> and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
>> after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
>> problem.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> Artworks from the 19th century, by notable artists:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AF%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png<-
>> Wheelwarred with three different admins to try and keep it deleted.
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AFranz_von_Bayros_016.jpg<-
>> Wheelwarred with two admins this time.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Diagrams intended to illustrate articles on sexual subjects, in wide use
>> on
>> Wikipedia projects for that purpose:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AWiki-fisting.png<-
>> Edit warred with three admins
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AWiki-facial.svg
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Further, when challeged on these, he said that he refused to engage in
>> any
>> discussion on the deletion of artwork *until he was done deleting all of
>> them*
>>
>> From
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891861&oldid=38891748
>>
>> "I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We
>> will
>> have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host
>> pornography
>> and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine
>> time
>> to start.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
>> Wales#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 7 May 2010
>> (UTC)"
>>
>>
>> How are such images to be found, after's he's gone and deleted them all?
>> Are
>> we really to sift through every single deletion several months later, to
>> find the things that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, and
>> which, thanks to the Commons Delinker bot, have been automatically
>> removed
>> from the articles they were used in?
>>
>> Out of Jimbo's deletions, at the very least a third of the deletions
>> related
>> to diagrams and historical artwork in wide use on Wikipedia projects.
>> This
>> despite his initial claim (
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38820363&oldid=38819608)
>> that he'd only be dealing with things that violated the law that
>> started
>> the controversy.
>>
>> If the board are not aware, there was, about a year ago, a controversy
>> related to images of Muhammed, in which Muslim readers - for whom such
>> are
>> horribly offensive, due to rules against depiction of the prophet - were
>> politely informed that we could not delete material simply because it
>> offended someone, as Wikipedia sought to show all of the world's
>> knowledge.
>> Jimbo's actions make that consensus deeply problematic.
>>
>> There is a petition for Wales' founder flag to be removed, which  has
>> gained
>> widespread support since his actions. (
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag )
>>
>>
>> -A. C.
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD