On 8/4/2006 Sam Korn wrote
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't actually stop it being child pornography.
Of course that does! Whether something is or is not child pornography is clearly subjective (especially in borderline cases like the picture you decided to delete) and I do not see why your personal judgement on the matter should be considered to supersede the judgments of other editors on Wikipedia who are neither POV-pushers nor trolls.
People left and right are saying things like "It was child porno" or "it was inappropriate for Wikipedia". These sort of things are what are called weasel words on Wiipedia articles. Wikipedia should not be edited according to the personal likings and dislikings of one or even several editors.
I believe it is accepted process to maintain status quo unless there is consensus to change, not change unless there is consensus to keep. We don't start by deleting articles and then undeleting them if people demonstrate a super-majority for retaining them, we do it the other way. I don't see why the process should be otherwise for image deletions.
Your rationale for deleting the image without consensus (that the IfD had failed to delete the image) is very strange, surely that's why the IfD is there for, to prevent the deletion of images when Wikipedia editors don't want to delete the image? "I will let the IfD delete images when I want them deleted but when it keeps images I want to be deleted then I'm just going to go ahead and delete them": doesn't this sound wrong to anyone?
Supposedly an admin has only abilities and not rights, but clearly in this case an admin has the right to irreversibly delete images that are not to his taste while an ordinary user doesn't have the right to keep images that are to his taste.
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Molu Bosu Palit,
Just to keep things clear... the latest IfD on that image wasn't closed when Sam Korn deleted it. I closed that day's IfD and would certainly have deleted the image, for no other reason than if an editor goes to the trouble of jumping through all of the hoops involved in listing a replacable image on IfD that is a copyright infringement, I'm pretty much guaranteed to delete it.
This shouldn't be read as my offering any comment on the content of the image. One should certainly read it as an encouragement to have an ironclad "fair use" rationale on any unfree image that one wants to keep that has been nominated to IfD.
Given that it certainly worked out well for me that Sam Korn speedied it, as otherwise I'd be the target of some of this grieving over an image no Wikipedian actually owned, I thought I might point out that you're operating from an incorrect assumption here.
Jkelly
Quoting Molu Bosu Palit loom91@yahoo.com:
Your rationale for deleting the image without consensus (that the IfD had failed to delete the image) is very strange, surely that's why the IfD is there for, to prevent the deletion of images when Wikipedia editors don't want to delete the image? "I will let the IfD delete images when I want them deleted but when it keeps images I want to be deleted then I'm just going to go ahead and delete them": doesn't this sound wrong to anyone?
On 4/10/06, Molu Bosu Palit loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
People left and right are saying things like "It was child porno" or "it was inappropriate for Wikipedia". These sort of things are what are called weasel words on Wiipedia articles. Wikipedia should not be edited according to the personal likings and dislikings of one or even several editors.
"Inappropriate" is not a weasel word.
I believe it is accepted process to maintain status quo unless there is consensus to change, not change unless there is consensus to keep. We don't start by deleting articles and then undeleting them if people demonstrate a super-majority for retaining them, we do it the other way. I don't see why the process should be otherwise for image deletions.
Jimbo has requested that we *not* maintain status quo while arguing over it, and Jimbo trumps consensus. Take it up with him if you don't like it.
Your rationale for deleting the image without consensus (that the IfD had failed to delete the image) is very strange, surely that's why the IfD is there for, to prevent the deletion of images when Wikipedia editors don't want to delete the image? "I will let the IfD delete
I think it's more to allow the deletion of images when Wikipedia editors *do* want them deleted.
images when I want them deleted but when it keeps images I want to be
deleted then I'm just going to go ahead and delete them": doesn't this sound wrong to anyone?
Of course. If it was purely a personal decision made for selfish reasons. But it wasn't.
Supposedly an admin has only abilities and not rights, but clearly in this case an admin has the right to irreversibly delete images that are not to his taste while an ordinary user doesn't have the right to keep images that are to his taste.
You're claiming that the admin's personal "taste" was the only concern here. There's significant evidence that that's not the case. And in any case, you're wrong - there's nothing (besides common sense, civility and good manners) stopping you from uploading the exact same image again. You certainly have that "ability".
Steve
On 4/10/06, Molu Bosu Palit loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
On 8/4/2006 Sam Korn wrote
Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't actually stop it being child pornography.
Of course that does! Whether something is or is not child pornography is clearly subjective
That's precisely my point. People are using laws of various countries to say "this image isnt' child pornography". However, a rational consideration of the issues would lead to most people saying it is.
-- Sam