Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
88 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Sue Gardner-2
Hi folks,

I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not
easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-)

So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be
super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--,
I'm going to recap here where I think the main strands of conversation
are happening.  Please let me know if I'm missing anything important.

1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
That's mostly happened here and on meta.

2) There is a strand about a proposed new Commons policy covering
sexual content: what is in scope, how to categorize and describe, etc.
 This policy has been discussed over time, and is being actively
discussed right now.  It is not yet agreed to, nor enforced.  I gather
it (the policy) reaffirms that sexual imagery needs to have some
educational/informational value to warrant inclusion in Commons,
attempts to articulate more clearly than in the past what is out of
scope for the project and why, and overall, represents a tightening-up
of existing standards rather than a radical change to them. It's here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content

3) There is a strand about content filtering (and, I suppose, other
initiatives we might undertake, in addition to new/tighter policy at
Commons).  This discussion is happening mostly here on foundation-l,
where it was started by Derk-Jan Hartman with the thread title
[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia.  AFAIK it's not
taking place on-wiki anywhere.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663

I also think that if people skipped over Greg Maxwell's thread
[Foundation-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff) -- it might be
worth them going back and taking a look at it.  I'm not expressing an
opinion on Greg's views as laid out in that note, and I think the
focus of the conversation has moved on a little in the 12 hours or so
since he wrote it.  But it's still IMO a very useful recap/summary of
where we're at, and as such I think definitely worth reading.  Few of
us seem to gravitate towards recapping/summarizing/synthesizing, which
is probably too bad: it's a very useful skill in conversations like
this one, and a service to everyone involved :-)
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195598.

Let me know if I'm missing anything important.

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as
Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there
being too much sexual explicit content.  As a consequence this important
free resource is no longer available to the students of Iran as a resource
for illustrations for their project work.

What I would like to know is if we have been talking to Iranian politicians
and / or if we have an understanding of what it takes to ensure that Commons
becomes available again.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 9 May 2010 23:28, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not
> easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-)
>
> So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be
> super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--,
> I'm going to recap here where I think the main strands of conversation
> are happening.  Please let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>
> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That's mostly happened here and on meta.
>
> 2) There is a strand about a proposed new Commons policy covering
> sexual content: what is in scope, how to categorize and describe, etc.
>  This policy has been discussed over time, and is being actively
> discussed right now.  It is not yet agreed to, nor enforced.  I gather
> it (the policy) reaffirms that sexual imagery needs to have some
> educational/informational value to warrant inclusion in Commons,
> attempts to articulate more clearly than in the past what is out of
> scope for the project and why, and overall, represents a tightening-up
> of existing standards rather than a radical change to them. It's here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
>
> 3) There is a strand about content filtering (and, I suppose, other
> initiatives we might undertake, in addition to new/tighter policy at
> Commons).  This discussion is happening mostly here on foundation-l,
> where it was started by Derk-Jan Hartman with the thread title
> [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia.  AFAIK it's not
> taking place on-wiki anywhere.
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663
>
> I also think that if people skipped over Greg Maxwell's thread
> [Foundation-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff) -- it might be
> worth them going back and taking a look at it.  I'm not expressing an
> opinion on Greg's views as laid out in that note, and I think the
> focus of the conversation has moved on a little in the 12 hours or so
> since he wrote it.  But it's still IMO a very useful recap/summary of
> where we're at, and as such I think definitely worth reading.  Few of
> us seem to gravitate towards recapping/summarizing/synthesizing, which
> is probably too bad: it's a very useful skill in conversations like
> this one, and a service to everyone involved :-)
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195598.
>
> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
>
> --
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 415 839 6885 office
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia.  AFAIK it's not
> taking place on-wiki anywhere.
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663

After Greg's, David Gerard's and Mike's arguments, I think that it is
clear that ICRA is not so good idea. We should make our own not
aggressive approach based on existing categorization system.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Przykuta
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2

> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy&#039;s actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That&#039;s mostly happened here and on meta.
>
Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps...

We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag

400 votes - 400 users <!--- (and probably puppets :p) --->

Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah)

Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble.

przykuta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Sue Gardner
Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table.

Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main conversation.  Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material.  Should we provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it easy for people to have a "safe" view if they want it, should we make a "safe" view a default view, and so forth.

My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.   But I think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of objectionable material.

To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we should do to resolve the question of objectionable material.  I think the thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that.  But it may be that we're not ready to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and brainstorm and so forth, for a while.

Thanks,
Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Przykuta [hidden email]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
        Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d
        iscussion is happening


> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy&#039;s actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That&#039;s mostly happened here and on meta.
>
Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps...

We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag

400 votes - 400 users <!--- (and probably puppets :p) --->

Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah)

Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble.

przykuta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

David Gerard-2
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.


Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate
project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters
outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would
mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Sue Gardner
Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't comment on it.  But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.

------Original Message------
From: David Gerard
To: Sue Gardner GMail
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
Sent: 9 May 2010 4:21 PM

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.


Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate
project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters
outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would
mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question?




________________________________
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.


Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate
project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters
outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would
mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Mike Godwin-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Geoffrey Plourde writes:

Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
> call Section 230 into question?
>

 Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230
problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A
guideline or policy urged by the Wikimedia Foundation and
adopted/implemented by the volunteer-editor community would not create such
a problem either.


--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

metasj
In reply to this post by Przykuta
Hi Przykuta,

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Przykuta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard.
<
> Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah)

This is a good topic for an open Wikimedia meeting.  I propose having
a chat in #wikimedia on Wednesday, at 1900 UTC:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_meetings#May_12,_2010

I hope to see you there (or to the next iteration, as we do it again and again).

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.

Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
but as related to cultural taboos or to "offensive imagery" if we want
to use euphemism.

Under the same category are:
* sexual content;
* images Muhammad;
* images of sacral places of many tribes;
* etc.

Although it is not the same medium, under the same category are all
texts which some culture may treat as offensive. So, censorship
categorization below assumes categorization of media *and texts*.

Important note is that we have to put some principles before going
into the process:
1) We don't want to censor ourselves (out of illegal material under
the US and Florida laws).
2) We want to allow voluntary auto-censorship on personal basis.
(Anyone can decide which categories he or she doesn't want to see.)
3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as
the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of
reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for
someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to someone
from Saudi Arabia. In all cases there has to be possibility to
overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences.)
4) We shouldn't help any kind of organized censorship by any
organization. For example, if looking at the naked body is prohibited
in some [Western] school even for educational purposes of teaching
anatomy, it is not our responsibility to censor it. Contrary, as naked
body is much deeper taboo in Muslim world, it should be censored on
"cultural basis" (3).

Speaking about "default censorship on cultural basis" and in the
context of the Western cultural standards, this should be contextual.
Commons gallery of penises should be censored by default, but that
exemplary image shouldn't be censored inside of the Wikipedia article
about penis.

We should have a voting system for registered users at site like
"censor.wikimedia.org" can be. At that site *registered* users would
be able to vote [anonymously] should they or not have censored images
of any category in their region (again, this is about Google-like
cultural based censorship which can be overruled by personal wish).
Users from Germany will definitely put different categories for
censorship than users from Texas. And it should be respected. Rights
of more permissive cultures shouldn't be endangered because of rights
of less permissive cultures.

That kind of voting system would remove the most of responsibility
from WMF. If majority of users in one culture expressed their wish, it
is not about us to argue with anyone why is it so.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>

> <snip>
> 3) We should allow voluntary/default censorship on cultural basis, as
> the most of our readers are not registered. (Based on IP address of
> reader. Thus, pictures of Muhammad should be shown by default for
> someone from Germany, but shouldn't be shown by default to someone
> from Saudi Arabia. In all cases there has to be possibility to
> overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences.)
> </snip>


I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
religion / set of values / morals.

AD
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Milos Rancic-2
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
> wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
> religion / set of values / morals.

You didn't read it well or I didn't explain it well. I should be just
default, like Google image search.

You would be able to override it by:
* logging into your account; or
* by simply clicking somewhere that you don't want to be censored.

The only level of censorship which should be imposed on cultural basis
is "default censorship". That means that just defaults should be in
accordance to the majority's taboos. However, everyone should be able
to switch from censored version to not censored version.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
> wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
> religion / set of values / morals.
>  

You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only
alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same.
That's like "one world, one set of values".

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
2010/5/10 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>

> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a
> Muslim
> > country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad
> pictures
> > but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
> > wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
> > religion / set of values / morals.
>
> You didn't read it well or I didn't explain it well. I should be just
> default, like Google image search.
>
> You would be able to override it by:
> * logging into your account; or
> * by simply clicking somewhere that you don't want to be censored.
>
> The only level of censorship which should be imposed on cultural basis
> is "default censorship". That means that just defaults should be in
> accordance to the majority's taboos. However, everyone should be able
> to switch from censored version to not censored version.
>
>
> Apologies, due to email saturation I quite missed "In all cases there has
to be possibility to
overrule such censorship by simple click or by preferences."

That said, the idea of the majority voting for a region doesn't sit well
with me. Muslims account for approximately 6% of the population in France
and it's a lose-lose situation: either the minority manages to prevail
(unlikely) and hence the majority would be subject to a minority POV or the
majority prevails (likely given Wikidemographics) and the minority is
suppressed.

If censorship were only implemented at the user's request (opt-in) then I
would have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

AD

AD
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
In reply to this post by Marcus Buck-2
2010/5/10 Marcus Buck <[hidden email]>:

> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
>> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
>> wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
>> religion / set of values / morals.
>>
>
> You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only
> alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same.
> That's like "one world, one set of values".

The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of
audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative
brilliant.

It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and
expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my
opinion.

I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached
consensus on this issue.

--
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Pronoein
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010



On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote:

> Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table.
>
> Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main conversation.  Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material.  Should we provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it easy for people to have a "safe" view if they want it, should we make a "safe" view a default view, and so forth.
>
> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.   But I think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of objectionable material.
>
> To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we should do to resolve the question of objectionable material.  I think the thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that.  But it may be that we're not ready to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and brainstorm and so forth, for a while.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Przykuta [hidden email]
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
> Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d
> iscussion is happening
>
>
>> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy&#039;s actions over the
>> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
>> That&#039;s mostly happened here and on meta.
>>
> Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps...
>
> We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag
>
> 400 votes - 400 users <!--- (and probably puppets :p) --->
>
> Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah)
>
> Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble.
>
> przykuta
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6DLoAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LPyEIANZz0qs0ETveeNNZl+cLAWYo
q6Ivu/2Y49VpfzRrgCm1RtUMiYPxvFtoXPv2PQpOmf4CiU6opm/fFZ06cEp30ete
Jey5525ALYyZidrnFaCnzzSl2Mai4zjKsLCcT3FPveAYdPk0JSf5Y4gIiWxU9a3i
WTbOnKByved0AN5tHlxFrorGx2cva/atUQX+RDGWfD6YWP4gbiyz4U2HyXaaMMOK
GXL3kA3wE/mUXg33hRmqJBVbIrMzQB6vrbkTbAijm2FiLW6j7iGC1iOFUDNMdVdA
hteOXYsIZs/UvtGLb8E0xZb+5UmjUtuwP+yMGSBNSy5TzuRVW7obu6AsFOhqSAA=
=eOeC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

David Goodman
If we follow sexual taboos, which ones do we follow? Some Moslem and
non-Moslem groups object to the depiction of any part of the anatomy,
some to depiction or exposure of certain parts only. Some extend it to
males. Some object to the portray of certain objects in an irreverent
manner--there have been major commotions over such displays of
christian symbols in artworks.
Different cultures have different taboos on the depiction of violence,
taboos not connected with religion.

There are similar cultural restrictions on verbal; expression. There
are the obvious different ones for sexual expression. US law includes
the concept of "community standards" --but our community is the entire
world. Some have taboos against public discussion of any religion not
the majority religion there. Some avoid the public discussion of
politics. And so on endlessly.
Someone above mentioned going by the majority in the region.
Protecting minority interests is part of NPOV, and actively promoting
minority languages is a policy of the WMF.

There is no way to limit censorship. The only consistent positions are
either  to not have external media at all, a position adopted by some
religious groups, or to not have censorship at all.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Noein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

Pronoein
In reply to this post by Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:

> 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck <[hidden email]>:
>> J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven:
>>> I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim
>>> country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures
>>> but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France
>>> wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one
>>> religion / set of values / morals.
>>>
>>
>> You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only
>> alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same.
>> That's like "one world, one set of values".
>
> The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of
> audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative
> brilliant.
>
> It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and
> expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my
> opinion.
>
> I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached
> consensus on this issue.
>

I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the
impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended.
In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're
alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them
all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month
of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I
don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe
I'm misunderstanding you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6Ez7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKkQH/0c0uBfRQ6NJsSAiJQzCHSGt
Irl+uUg2xGhK9YfkeKFVpIcpSPzOTZA2oNZXjSr8lTS65U/jTui1f2T+zJsIUlTt
4TA87eRWY8lWub9zOdVmmlW3tOsrG12XB70GDrQOYqkVraYUX1owlRXS/nxWl877
rU3Uq+Y7LWhcILC8cFvQQ9LIsWKAfTrDQbsPITDAmWVV7LeDcllMShn6l9cMbAs9
TazNTb/CJwi0j/vdnjy4JYJ0sGPrGoLKfQ3QZPFSZ/EoyfcUnx6GwjgPOMPol5ZO
hEK+QzY3lbUqbtcDtEMX3/V1RR/gKCnHocP9bOiFNWxdruJq1cFAcSCTwqgPY1Q=
=1xe5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

David Gerard-2
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
> wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
> offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
> person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the
> impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended.
> In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're
> alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them
> all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month
> of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I
> don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe
> I'm misunderstanding you.


Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user
to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to
see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what
they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular
unpopular categories can be offered as a package.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345