[WikiEN-l] Jimbo on Commons

[Carcharoth]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy.  There's
>> a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
>> as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if
>> some suggested exception to that policy is a good idea on the grounds that
>> we don't do such things, ever.  It's a triumph of rules lawyering over
>> common sense.  Of course, when questioned they will admit that exceptions
>> are allowed, but their attitude to any proposed exception remains the same.
>
> I realise Wikipedia is a perpetual ever-refreshing Year Zero, but last
> time someone put together a series of options I do recall that they
> were resoundingly voted down:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship
>
> Perhaps the time is ripe for another try. (I doubt it myself.)

The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave the "not censored" banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
being censored is one of the most widely misunderstood concepts, in my
opinion, stemming from people having different ideas about what is
censorship and what is editorial discretion and common sense and not
indiscriminately allowing everything through the door (remembering we
are talking about image uploads here). People have misappropriated the
"censorship" label and applied it to the removal of anything they
think should be kept.

My foray into this took place two years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_content_guidelines

I didn't push the proposal enough, and due to lack of activity it got
marked historical. Anyone should feel free to attempt to resurrect it
if they think it is a helpful start towards something useful.

See also the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines

And various subpages, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines/sexual_content

There was even a Signpost story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography

This was *two* years ago, remember. Although it has come to a head
again recently, this is nothing new.

That page was intended to be a centralised place to list heated
discussions that arose from image use, as seen by the list produced
here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines#Previous_discussions

But unfortunately it never really got going. But the principle is
still sound, I think.

Carcharoth