R M Harris .. but the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion within the communities about some of the questions which I've encountered, specifically around Commons and images within Commons. ... I look forward to the comments of any of you who wish to join the discussion.
[Delurking briefly]
Me n'th, endorsing the idea expressed by many others, that another generic public discussion of these issues will be of dubious utility. At some point, it's all been said, and as the saying goes, it's "pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse."
The various factions are known. I suppose you have to do this in order to say you've consulted with the community. But for heaven's sake, can it at least be done at a level better than yet another rehash?
[Relurking]
Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an image of nude bondage in the "BDSM" article, you probably wouldn't want it included in the "Rope" article, and almost certainly not in the "Play (activity)" article. Similarly, you probably wouldn't want to feature an image of Osama Bin Laden on the en.wiki Main Page on 9/11. Right now, we rely solely on the discretion of our editors to make sure images are used in appropriate contexts. It would be useful if we actually had a policy we could point to if an editor happened to have a catastrophic loss of discretion. Something simple like: "Potentially objectionable images should only be used in contexts for which they are directly relevant and appropriate. In addition, the use of potentially objectionable images in contexts such as Picture of the Day, Random Picture of the Day, Today's featured picture, etc. should be avoided as these uses generally do not provide adequate context for such images."
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/22/10 1:57 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
R M Harris .. but the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion within the communities about some of the questions which I've encountered, specifically around Commons and images within Commons. ... I look forward to the comments of any of you who wish to join the discussion.
[Delurking briefly]
Me n'th, endorsing the idea expressed by many others, that another generic public discussion of these issues will be of dubious utility. At some point, it's all been said, and as the saying goes, it's "pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse."
The various factions are known. I suppose you have to do this in order to say you've consulted with the community. But for heaven's sake, can it at least be done at a level better than yet another rehash?
[Relurking]
On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an image of nude bondage in the "BDSM" article, you probably wouldn't want it included in the "Rope" article, and almost certainly not in the "Play (activity)" article. Similarly, you probably wouldn't want to feature an image of Osama Bin Laden on the en.wiki Main Page on 9/11. Right now, we rely solely on the discretion of our editors to make sure images are used in appropriate contexts.
And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten years.
It would be useful if we actually had a policy we could point to if an editor happened to have a catastrophic loss of discretion. Something simple like: "Potentially objectionable images should only be used in contexts for which they are directly relevant and appropriate. In addition, the use of potentially objectionable images in contexts such as Picture of the Day, Random Picture of the Day, Today's featured picture, etc. should be avoided as these uses generally do not provide adequate context for such images."
Rules saying "don't be stupid" don't work and encourage less cluefulness, not more cluefulness.
- d.
On 7/22/10 4:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten years.
So far it's worked because we've been lucky. Here's an example of a bad situation just waiting to happen: Every once in while someone nominates an obviously provocative image to be featured on Commons. So far they have all failed on purely technical grounds (unless you count the couple of "softcore" nude images that have passed). Commons' featured picture criteria includes nothing about appropriateness for the Main Page. Indeed, the Featured Picture people maintain that they have no control over what gets put on the Main Page and it isn't their problem. The Picture of the Day people (who actually choose what goes on the Main Page) also disavow any responsibility as they say they have no control over what images get Featured Status and all Featured pictures are fair game for the Main Page. Thus if someone were to nominate a hardcore pornographic image that was technically superb for featured status on Commons, it would probably pass. The POTD people would then say it is fair game and put it on the Main Page of Commons. If you think this isn't possible, you haven't hung out on Commons long enough. At least on en.wiki we have a psuedo-gatekeeper ( Raul654).
Rules saying "don't be stupid" don't work and encourage less cluefulness, not more cluefulness.
I'm not saying "don't be stupid". I'm suggesting some specific (but flexible) guidelines we can point to for those editors who have demonstrated a lack of cluefulness.
Ryan Kaldari
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org