[Foundation-l] moderation soft limit

Andreas K. jayen466 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 18:18:16 UTC 2011

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For those interested, there is a current request for arbitration on
> English
> > Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which
> > contains some further views and discussion. I have summarised my view
> that
> > our illustrations, just like our texts, should follow good practice
> > established in reliable sources here:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=457335488#Statement_by_Jayen466
> And the AC summarised theirs: 0 accept, 6 decline. As tends to happen
> when people go forum-shopping.

Do you have a problem with it if our approach to illustration matches that
of our sources?

Because the committee's reluctance to rule on this case has nothing to do
with that question, but with the fact that, as framed by the editor who
raised the request, it is a content rather than user conduct question
(related to a longstanding dispute about image use in the pregnancy and
Muhammad articles). The committee is quite rightly reluctant to rule on
content, or write policy.

As several arbitrators have said, it's still a discussion that needs to be
had though. And for the avoidance of doubt, I did not raise that arbitration
request, as I'm sure you know very well.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list