[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Fred Bauder]

I found out about this from Larry Sanger's mailing list. Larry has
reported the "child pornography" images on Commons to the FBI, as is the
duty of any citizen, and has apparently appeared on Fox News with respect
to the subject.

I certainly have noticed occasional questionable images, the explicit
image that used to illustrate "Pearl necklace (sexuality)" comes to mind.
I have always objected to offensive images (such as of Muhammad) and know
that somewhere there is a sane dividing line between the informative and
the prurient.

Fred Bauder

> As some of you may know, Jimbo has recently used his standing in the
> community to dictate that Commons should not host porn. [1][2][3]  He
> has interpreted this to include a wide swath of images both
> photographic and illustrative, and both contemporary and historical.
>
> In principle, I agree that having a stricter policy on sexual images
> is a good thing, but fundamentally we need to have a clear policy on
> what should be allowed and what shouldn't.  Attempts to write one [4]
> have become a moving target that leaves us without a functional policy
> or community consensus.  Initially, this was based on the
> characteristics of the USC 2257 record keeping laws, but Jimbo has
> gone beyond this by deleting non-photographic and historical works
> that would not be covered by 2257.
>
> In essence, right now Jimbo is deleting things based on his singular
> judgment about what should be allowed. [5]
>
> These deletions have continued with little apparent concern for
> whether or not an image is currently in use by any of the projects.
>
> This is a large change and lack of a clear policy creates a very
> confusing and frustrating environment for editors.  (Multiple Commons
> admins have already stated their intention to resign and/or retire
> over this.)
>
> Again, I agree that tighter controls on sexual images are generally a
> good thing, but I believe the abruptness, lack of clear policy, and
> lack of a consensus based approach is creating an unnecessarily
> disruptive environment.  Much of the content has been hosted by
> Wikimedia for years, so do we really have to delete it all, right now?
>  Can we not take a week or two to articulate to boundaries of what
> should be deleted and what should be kept?
>
> In general, I would ask that things slow down until some sort of a
> clear policy can be created (either by the community or the WMF /
> Board).  This is especially true when it comes to deleting images that
> are in use on the various Wikipedias.  (Such deletions have already
> been widespread).
>
> I would also like to ask whether either the WMF or the Board plans to
> intervene?  Because of Jimbo's historical standing and technical
> access, the Commons community is largely impotent to stop him.
> Multiple requests by the community that things slow down or a clear
> policy be crafted prior to mass deletions have thus far been
> ineffective.
>
> At the very least it would be helpful if the WMF and/or Board would
> express a position on the appropriate use of sexual content?
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
> [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Cleanup_policy
> (and following sections)
> [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
> [4] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
> [5]
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Jimbo+Wales
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>