[Foundation-l] Censorship: Speedy deletion of porn articles

[George Herbert]

On 3/9/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> luke brandt wrote:
>
> >Yonatan Horan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Some claim
> >>that a rule has been passed but many admins disagree with this. The "vote"
> >>was passed about two years ago and had 10-20 participants. In addition to
> >>this, the vote came at a time when the Hebrew Wikipedia was repeatedly
> >>vandalized by a certain user and many of the voters supposedly for the
> >>banning of porn articles referred only to this specific case (this is
> >>supported by their comments on the page).
> >>
> >>By the way, just so nobody corrects me, on the Hebrew Wikipedia *there are
> >>votes* since consensus is hardly ever reached and the total needed to pass a
> >>vote is a ridiculous 55%. Anyway, despite all the above, a few admins have
> >>
> >>
> >Why not try and organize another vote on the issue to gauge local
> >opinion without the vandalism issue to affect the voting. Perhaps your
> >views will now prevail? - Best, luke
> >
> This seems to be closer to the real issue.  NPOV doesn't really enter
> into this unless there is some doubt that the person is really a
> "star".  There seems to be no doubt that the person in fact did make movies.
>
> I've consistently upheld the importance of project autonomy, even if it
> results in articles with very different language versions.  When another
> language is involved it's difficult or impossible for any non-speakers
> to evaluate the content.  Discussions that led to acceptance on enwp
> could have had a parallel discussion in another language with exactly
> the opposite result.  Anything else would allow the larger project to
> dominate the smaller.
>
> What worries me is this tendency to treat votes as final.  A 55% passing
> vote may be quite valid, but then so too should a 55% negative vote a
> month later.  The circumstances when the broader community intervenes in
> the internal afairs of a project need to be extremely limited; most
> issues relating to which articles should be allowed and what the
> articles should contain must be left to the project itself.  The
> takeover of a project by a small group intent on driving a project in a
> particular direction over the wishes of that community may be valid
> grounds for intervention, but I am not in a position to state that this
> is or is not now happening in hewp.
>
> Ec


My questions:

Is the current he.wp rules structure which allegedly forbids the
pornographic references documented?

If so, is there an english translation for those of us not enlightened
enough to read Hebrew?

Right now, we are all speculating in the dark.

If there is no written policy and people are banned for violating an
unwritten policy, then I believe there is a Foundation issue.

If there is a written policy that is in conflict with Foundation
policy, then I believe there is a Foundation issue.

If there's a written policy in accord with Foundation policy, then
there's a he.wp user education problem, and possibly a lack of AGF,
but those aren't really Foundation problems per se.

Or, possibly, we're just being trolled.

I think we currently lack enough info to determine which of these
cases is actually going on.  Can someone who isn't involved but who
can read Hebrew research and give us a report?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com