[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Samuel Klein]

David,

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
Commons.

SJ

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
> project.
> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> 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.
>> Thanks,
>>       GerardM
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/000008.html
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> ~A
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>