No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. I would suggest further that if a process that brings Commons in to compliance with WMF board resolutions is not designed and implemented by the next time this occurs, Commons will likely either be forced to rapidly adopt a process to address the problem, or, if reluctant to do so, is likely to have stewards step in to ensure that WMF board resolutions are not flagrantly disregarded. Neither of those are ideal outcomes for anyone involved. Commons as a community is generally pretty hardline anti-anything-that-could-be-perceived as censorship, which is absolutely fine. However, ignoring WMF board resolutions - repeatedly - especially with no justification other than OMG THIS IS CENSORSHIP is not absolutely fine. If you view my initial post here as an incoherent rant as you've described it elsewhere, I'd suggest you read it again.
I'm absolutely happy to help with setting up a process that ensures that ridiculous stuff like this doesn't happen in the future, and intend to participate in on-wiki discussions trying to set up such a process. I will admit that I'm doubtful Commons is willing to comply with resolutions of the WMF board - at least not without putting up a hell of a fight - since the last time I came to Commons and started some deletion nominations based on the fact that the media in question violated multiple WMF board resolutions, although my deletion nominations were pretty consistently upheld, at least one commons admin suggested in seriousness that a more appropriate resolution to the situation would simply be indeffing me from the project rather than conforming to the WMF Board's resolutions about media which involves identifiable people.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
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:
- Commons should follow the "lead" of English Wikipedia and,
- 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... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe