[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

Sat May 8 17:23:43 UTC 2010

I am amazed by the Keep votes the various deletion requests for images in the BDSM gallery -- files that are not actually used by any project -- are getting.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/08#May_8

Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual activity" in BDSM images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are not pornographic.

Andreas

--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> To: mnemonic at gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, 8 May, 2010, 17:27
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike
> Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf
> of the Foundation but
> > instead as a longtime participant in online
> communities who has worked
> > extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my
> perspective on a couple of
> > themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first
> is the claim that
> > Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a
> threat by Fox News
> > (and that this threat was somehow small or
> insignificant). The second is
> > the
> > idea that the proper focus of the current discussion
> ought to be focused on
> > Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or
> against particular
> > aspects of the actions he took) to the effective
> exclusion of discussion of
> > whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited,
> refined, or better
> > implemented.
> >
> > First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox
> News is not a
> > responsible news organization. This means that they
> get too many stories
> > wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically
> echo Larry Sanger's
> > uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it
> also means that when
> > their mistakes are brought to their attention, they
> may redouble their
> > aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating
> their original story.
> > This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its
> reporter and her editors)
> > were trying to do. If the media culture in the United
> States were such that
> > Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could
> probably just ignore it.
> > But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox
> News does manage to
> > infect other media coverage in ways that are
> destructive to good people and
> > to good projects.
> >
> > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been
> better for Fox to
> > have gone with the original story they were trying to
> create rather than
> > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. 
> Jimmy's decision to
> > intervene changed the narrative they were attempting
> to create. So even if
> > you disagree with some or all of the particulars of
> Jimmy's actions, you
> > may
> > still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a
> whole, created
> > breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons
> that even many of
> > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue.
> >
> > The question then becomes whether we're doing to
> discuss the issues of
> > Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions
> themselves signify a
> > problem that needs to be fixed.  You may say we
> can discuss both, and
> > technically you'd be right, but the reality of human
> discourse is that if
> > you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be
> discussing Commons
> > policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons
> policy. My personal
> > opinion is that this would be the waste of an
> opportunity.
> >
> > I think it's also worth remembering that when an
> individual like Jimmy is
> > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in
> extraordinary
> > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any
> use of those powers
> > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial,
> nobody would need
> > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems
> quickly and
> > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your
> disagreement with the
> > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's
> powers should be removed,
> > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this
> abrupt intervention as an
> > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its
> implementation can be
> > improved in a way that brings it more into line with
> the Wikimedia
> > projects'
> > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not
> surprise me if the
> > result turned out to be that some of the material
> deleted by Jimmy will be
> > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's
> approval in many cases.
> >
> > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered
> a healthy debate
> > about
> > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions
> -- not individually
> > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified.
> (Like many of you, I
> > would probably disagree with some of his particular
> decisions, but I
> > recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular
> decisions.) It is not
> > the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes
> in projects these days
> > -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from
> intervening, which is as it
> > should be, and which I think speaks well of his
> restraint.  It should be
> > kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was
> aimed at protecting
> > our
> > projects from external threat and coercion, precisely
> to give breathing
> > space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes
> that we all value and
> > believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I
> hope that rather
> > than
> > venting and raging about what was done in the face of
> an imminent and
> > vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking
> discussion of how things
> > can be made better. This discussion is best focused on
> policy, and not on
> > Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent
> efforts to protect the
> > Wikimedia projects and movement. That's where our
> efforts should be focused
> > too.
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> 
> I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment.
> 
> The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that
> Community
> discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the
> issue. And that "not
> censored" should not be used to halt discussions about the
> way to manage
> content.
> 
> The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has
> brought much needed
> attention to a long standing problem. Now is the time for
> the Community to
> focus on cleaning up Commons and writing a sensible policy
> about managing
> sexual content.
> 
> Sydney Poore
> (FloNight)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 