Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 122, Issue 44

On May 13, 2014, at 1:09 PM, wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Kevin Gorman) 2. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Nathan) 3. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. (David Gerard) 4. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Kevin Gorman) 5. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Wil Sinclair) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:39:16 -0700 From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. Message-ID: <CAJJA526pwx8BsTP9Pm2VUJ1QvapTR+_72MJhfTZTSQ20enWviw(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and are not censured by their peers is a project with problems. David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board "supports" the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages. ---- Kevin Gorman ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:47:05 -0400 From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. Message-ID: <CALKX9dRo1PJnKdP8B6MmCsOZCayBoFYXeHdK9k5Rff5Lx+LinA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think David was reacting to your bold assertion that the next time you determine Commons has violated a Board resolution, drastic action would be taken. This suggests some certainty on your part that the Board and stewards agree with your judgment. I haven't seen evidence of that. You can certainly advocate that action be taken, but dire warnings of certain consequences seem a bit beyond your authority to issue. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:49:55 +0100 From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. Message-ID: <CAJ0tu1Hb11upX-S4BOmFYyjLtycDa7zmxqDguma4Gb5Lqyb7_A(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I was more disagreeing with the implicit claim that this was such an obvious slam dunk that Kevin could get action on it while explicitly refusing to engage with the community in question, literally on the grounds that he'd previously been so disruptive they'd spoken of banning him. That last bit really doesn't suggest the case is very strong. - d. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:04:16 -0700 From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. Message-ID: <CAJJA526LpSRtbOW3C7tuQWDftbC0tMC1NauaaEy57aUQfKR+3w(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 David, just out of curiosity, do you actually read most posts on this mailing list? Or monitor Commons? I'll be typing up an additional response on Commons later today as I have the time but the last time you asked why I wasn't engaging on Commons the answer was, quite literally, because I hadn't finished typing my post on commons yet, and had it up within five minutes of your post (and hadn't seen your post until after I had it up.) Could you please point out again where I'm refusing to engage with the community in question? In the meantime, I'd still love to hear the reasonable articulation that this wasn't a violation of POLA that you keep seeming to suggest exists. ---- Kevin Gorman ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:08:42 -0700 From: Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. Message-ID: <CAK7yed6vPTTdTfGUhoPVKCTxZxAULapwrxS+D7De4dNETPmWcw(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I've never heard "Principle of Least Astonishment" used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; is this one of those cases? FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like "fuck," but in my experience it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. ,Wil ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 122, Issue 44 ********************************************