[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
meta.sj at gmail.com
Sat May 8 11:48:23 UTC 2010
This is an excellent list of principles, which I strongly support.
Projects generally have standards of notability, which is equivalent
to "significant" informative or educational value, otherwise they fill
up with cruft. A lack of sufficient notability standards for media
not in use on any Project seems to be one of the issues in question on
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies:
> 1. that the WMF projects as a whole contains only material --of any
> sort , on any topic-- with informative or educational value, and
> judges that by community decision in the relevant project
> 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain.
> 3. that if there is legal material that is objectionable to some
> people but that does have informative or educational value, the
> guiding principle is that we do not censor, and that the specific
> interpretation of that is guided by community decision in the relevant
> 4. That no individual whomsoever possesses ownership authority over
> any part of any WMF project.
> 5. That Commons acts as a common repository of free material for the
> various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The opinions of
> particular projects about what content there to use does not control
> the content, nor does the opinion of the commons community control
> other projects.
> How recent actions ca be judged in this light is to me obvious, but it
> is clear that some responsible opinions differ. I have expressed my
> own personal opinion elsewhere.
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what
>> Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that
>> should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we
>> really have to consider how we deal with this issue.
>> The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship
>> with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is
>> preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue.
>> On 7 May 2010 22:42, Amory Meltzer <amorymeltzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is nuts. Literally, nothing has changed. Stuff on Wikimedia
>>> sites needs to be either educational or aimed at furthering the goals
>>> of the project and the foundation. We don't host articles about my
>>> her breasts or his penis, and we don't need to host images of them
>>> either. Arguing otherwise is just looking for a webhost.
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 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