On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> 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