On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch
<sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation
does something," what are
you looking for them to do?
Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as
I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR
exercises, and no deeds.
Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons,
making it clear that the
more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.
The community would have to do that. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't do that.
Wikimedia Foundation didn't invent Commons or create the scope for Commons,
as far as I know. (I could be wrong though.) So I'm not sure why that would
fall into the scope. If Wikimedia stepped in and said "Ok Commonists, here
is your new scope," all hell would break lose and we'd most likely have a
fork.
Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation. I think the suggestion
is that Wikipedia is often a hostile work environment for women because of
sexism, and so the question is whether something about not creating a
hostile environment in that way could be added to the terms of use. (I know
it would be difficult to find the right words.)
We don't have a similar situation with racism, and wouldn't tolerate it if
one developed. I'm trying to think of an analogy. It might be something
like uploading thousands of photographs of African Americans as slaves, or
being lynched, then adding to them to unrelated articles whenever possible.
We wouldn't allow that to happen -- those responsible would be blocked, and
the images would at least be removed from unrelated articles without
argument.
Commons is a separable issue (though obviously related, attitude-wise).
Would it be a huge problem if it were to fork? Or if a separate pornography
project were to be created by the Foundation or others?
Sarah