Kevin,
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pete -
I was using oversight rather loosely to mean "there's a body of people looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before they get out of the gate," rather than any stricter sense of the term. I view the scrutiny of a reasonable number of other Wikimedians as a form of oversight, even without a hierarchical structure in place. I would say that ITN or DYK on ENWP have reasonable oversight (although it certainly sometimes fails,) but don't view a process that needs 1-2 people to promote something to a highly viewed mainpage as having reasonable oversight.
You seem to be suggesting that:
1) Commons should follow the "lead" of English Wikipedia and, 2) Commons should become as self-censored as what English Wikipedia has become.
Several years ago, I 5x expanded the article for Fucking[1] and I nominated it for DYK.[2] The article had the potential to be the most viewed DYK of all time, but instead of being placed as the lead hook, it was "buried" at the bottom. When I asked about it possibly being the lead hook, I was told that it was up to any individual to promote hooks, and that it should be taken up with them. I remember getting a response that it would be inappropriate to have "foul" language (or a photo thereof) visible like that on the front page, even though it certainly wasn't foul language at all....it's simply the name of the town. So needless to say, a DYK which could have gotten 100,000 views was left to get only around 15,000 views for that day.
Is this the type of oversight you mean Kevin? If so, keep that sort of oversight on English Wikipedia thank you very much.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&ol...