[Foundation-l] Motives?

[Adam Cuerden]

I just realised: Every single one of Wales' actions make sense if
Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit
controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in
a couple months. His statements lend strong support to this theory.
Consider:

*"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=38806204
Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all
images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal
solely to prurient interests have my full support. <b>This includes
immediate deletion of all pornographic images.</b>]"

*"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=38893040&oldid=38891318
This portion of policy against sexually explicit images applies to
both actual photographs as well as drawings.]" (change made by him to
[[Commons:Sexual content]], which other editors had edited to forbade
from applying to artworks - in other words, an expansion based on
media focus)

*"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891882&oldid=38891748
We can have a long discussion and work out a new set of parameters
after the cleanup project is completed. It is not acceptable to host
pornography in the meantime.]"

*"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891882&oldid=38891748
I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We
will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host
pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st
will be a fine time to start.]"

*"[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=39075883#Next_steps
I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong
series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to
have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very
unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of
confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get
rid of.]"

*"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058086.html
There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting
the crisis.  In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am
sorry.]"

*"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html
We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore
pornography and doing nothing about it.  Now, the correct storyline is
that we are cleaning up.  I'm proud to have made sure that storyline
broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make
it happen.]"


A complete panicked purge of all potentially objectionable material,
followed by its reinstatement when media focus is off of us is....

I don't even know where to begin. It treats editors as pawns in some
big chess game, and, I will point out again: Wales never revealed this
was about the Media until after his deletion spree.

...I'll leave it to others to comment. I'm too shocked.

-Adam