[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> > > OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> > > needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> > > (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).

> > What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
> > (thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?

> Replacing it with a different image,

This assumes that a suitable alternative is readily available (which
likely isn't the case with many of the inappropriately deleted images,
including those that Jimbo wheel-warred over) and still entails
delinking the original image.

> removing the text from the article which refers to the image,

This is a highly undesirable outcome (and example of potential damage).

> contacting someone at Commons to argue for reinstatement of the image...

This is not always feasible (depending on one's native language) and
is futile when Jimbo intends to unilaterally overrule any such
decision.

Additionally, one might erroneously assume that the image was deleted
for a valid reason (e.g. copyright infringement).

> And yeah, uploading the missing image locally (thereby bypassing Commons)
> would be another possibility.

This is another highly undesirable outcome (and example of potential damage).

> All depends on the situation.  But fortunately, the human brain (unlike the
> robot brain) is very flexible in dealing with a multitude of situations.

And the point is that some solutions weaken the Wikimedia Commons
and/or the sister projects that rely upon it.

> Maybe by finding a translator?

Depending on the language, that isn't always an easy task.  And again,
that assumes that a benefit exists and is apparent.

> Alternatively, they could employ one of the possibilities listed above
> which don't involve speaking English at all.

See above.

David Levy