[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri May 7 22:47:37 UTC 2010
There has been a need to address these things. Let us be clear, there is no
need for speedy deletions, there is time to have the ordinary deletion
process. Let us be equally clear that there is no room for business as usual
because not only have things gone bad and bans like the current Iranian one
are not addressed but also because the board of the WMF has clearly
indicated that things are out of kilter.
Consequently, it does not help at all to argue about if you like or dislike
the approach Jimmy has taken. He has clearly put this issue on the map and
that is good. When we want to stabilise the situation by having the standard
process, it has to be clear that the argument why something is to be kept
has to be clear and strong. Nudity is in and of itself not an issue. The
nature and the volume of many subjects is.
What is needed is are criteria and they have to include the amount of images
we need for the subjects under discussion. As I argued on my blog, a Maroon
with a loincloth should not even feature in the category "nudity".
On 8 May 2010 00:33, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
> > For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
> > effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
> > direction.
> The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
> It's a whack across the head with a spiked club, by someone who
> doesn't have good aim.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l