[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Ryan Kaldari]

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