[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

Ting Chen wing.philopp at gmx.de
Sat May 8 09:06:36 UTC 2010

Marcus Buck wrote:
> Ting Chen hett schreven:
>> 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.
> Not my definition of a "soft push".
> In my opinion it's not the task of board or foundation to push the 
> community in any direction. It's the other way round, the community 
> forms board and foundation. The task of board and foundation is to 
> operate the servers, to develop the software needed to operate our 
> projects, and to stop members of the community or of the outside world 
> from doing things harmful to the community, e.g. by violating the law. 
> But they should not decide on the actual content, that's the task of the 
> community.
I disagree with this. The Foundation has a mission, and the board has 
the duty to keep the Foundation, and the community on the rail for this 

The board had always pushed the community, sometimes more soft, 
sometimes more harsh.

In 2005 on the first Wikimania in Frankfurt the board called the 
community to take measure to improve the quality and reliability of 
Wikipedia. This is not the start of our quality offensive but it had 
trimendously strengthend the effort of the community.

The resolution of BLP is another example for the board to give guidance 
to the community in handling certain topics.

In many of our major projects we are facing declining new comer, the 
community is often regarded as harsh or even unfriendly to new comers. 
The board is trying to broaden our outreach and make our community and 
projects more welcome and more diverse.

These are all examples where the board push the community into certain 

> We do not need 10,000 close-ups of penises. But we need some penises. 
> Small, medium, big, from different ethnicities, crooked, shaved and 
> unshaved, with jewelry, with diseases etc. pp. We will never reach a 
> state where the number of our penis images is low enough to make 
> conservative agenda makers happy without leaving medical articles or 
> articles on sexuality unillustrated (which would lower their 
> informativeness and thus their educational value).
What you wrote here is totally right, and this is also not the reason 
for the whole action. I wrote in my answer to Milos more detailed about 
the reason.



Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/

More information about the foundation-l mailing list