On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com
Marcus Buck wrote:
Amory Meltzer hett schreven:
This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed.
Stuff on Wikimedia
sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
either. Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided by the
community, by admins who have earned their rights in a community vote,
and according to policies. Take e.g.
<
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9…
.
That image is a 19th century artwork, a drawing, from an important
artist. It was uploaded to Commons in 2006 and never questioned. But
Jimbo didn't file a deletion request, he didn't even put a speedy
delete. He just deleted it with a generic message given as reason. Two
times the deletion was reverted by longstanding Commons admins who
wanted to uphold Commons policy about deletions and two times Jimbo
deleted it again, with the same generic reason. At the moment the file
is again undeleted by a third Commons admin. (Jimbo is not online at the
moment to overturn that decision.)
I think this is a really obvious example how Jimbo breaks policies and
why large parts of the Commons community are upset.
Interestingly enough, the same
caricatyrist still retains
on teh commons another work (for the moment at least),
which possibly many would find nearly as offensive, but
is likely just about the perfectest metaphor for what is
currently happening on Wikimedia Commons...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_La_tentation_de…
And what would that be?
I expect someone will be adding article content explaining the historical
significance of each of these works. If it's so horrible that they be
deleted, it shouldn't be tough to add a paragraph or two which make it
obvious why.