[Foundation-l] Racism in Commons

[Monahon, Peter B.]

> Earlier: "... I think it would be a bad idea 
> to close such a controversial issue prematurely ..."

Peter Blaise responds: I'm lost to find a definition of the word
'controversy' that would be informative on the appropriateness of any
time frame for any actions or decision making process, see Google
[define:controversy] for a start.  It's a throw away word that means
nothing as far as I can tell.  I believe any situation can be accurately
defined and acted on without clouding it up with "... has it reached
'controversy' level yet? ... then we must take decelerated action!"  ...
which means what?

Q: "Would you please delete pictures I don't like?"

A: "No."

What controversy?  Because the asker asked twice?  Or with emphasis?  Or
using hot words and threats that make some of us feel circumspect?

Q: "Would you please delete controversial pictures I don't like, or bad
things will happen?"

A: "Still no.  They're only controversial because you don't like them,
by definition of the word "controversy"!"

==

However, if someone has some criteria to propose on the when or the
conditions under which any "issue" can and should be closed, please dive
in.  How about something measurable, like, "Take the next step after 10
days."  Or, "... after 10 votes."

As of Thursday, December 6, 2007  14:06:32 pm EST, at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriat
e_cartoons 
there are 15 votes to keep the challenged images, 100% agreement.

In other words, we all agree: we want no racism censoring commons.

'nuf said?