[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

Ting Chen wing.philopp at gmx.de
Sat May 8 10:17:59 UTC 2010

Hello David,

it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my 
opinion on the cases.

I personally disagree with some of the decisions the Commons community 
made in the past, and I do think that in some cases Commons has a too 
broad definition for educational, and sometimes in my opinion Commons 
community has an interpretation of board resolutions that is not the 
same as I approved it [1]. I also think that Commons is not a free media 
repository like every other in the web. It has a mission, and this 
mission is the same as the mission of the Foundation. It was created to 
support other WMF projects so that not every free image used by the 
projects must be uploaded in every project, and this is its role inside 
of the WMF projects. If it do come to a clarification of the scope of 
Commons by the board my personal opinion is quite clear from my 
statements above.


[1] - 

David Levy wrote:
> Ting Chen wrote:
>> It is certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
>> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
>> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
>> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis.
> Errors are understandable, but Jimmy deliberately cast aside the
> reasoned views of the community's most trusted users by continually
> wheel-warring with a generic deletion summary (an extraordinarily
> disrespectful method).  Does this have your full support as well?
> David Levy
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list