User talk:Jimbo Wales

Archived

(Note, I've reset my talk page to move us into the next phase of this discussion. If you want to read the old stuff, it isn't deleted, it is in the archive: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive.)

Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies.

I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do encourage people to continue deleting the most extreme stuff.

But as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) there is not nearly the time pressure that there was. I'm shifting into a slower mode.

We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.

Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible policy discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales, you are the only person who has stop a serious policy discussion by your actions.

You have repeatedly violated speedy deletion policy by speedy deleting files that should have gone through the normal deletion process.

You have repeatedly engaged in wheelwars — and, worse, without justifying yourself in some manner that anyone who is not you would consider reasonable.

You have gone against community consensus by deleting files that meet Commons guidelines, i.e. images that are educationally useful and not low-quality porn photos. The correct order of events should be to first try to build a consensus to change the guidelines, and then, if successful, delete the images — only after warning the projects that use them and giving them adequate time to create replacements.

When asked to explain your administrative actions, you seriously suggest everyone wait for 4 weeks before you deign to metaphorically get off your throne and discuss anything.

Mr. Wales, your gung-ho attitude towards administration has damaged the community for no good reason. You have single-handedly destroyed Wikipedia's trust in Commons. You have have single-handedly destroyed Commons' users' trust in their administrators. If everything was about FOX, you have lied to us in recent days. You show absolutely no respect for the users here and on Wikipedia. And we can not be a free encyclopedia if we delete files to make Fox happy, it's intellectual corruption.

--Ankara (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not about Fox at all, it is about our educational mission. Let me ask you point blank: do you want Wikimedia Commons to be a hardcore porn hosting service? I ask you to look at this video - watch the whole thing, it's only 8 minutes or so long. And then come back and tell me that it's more important that I allow you to upload and view hardcore pornography, than that we responsibly serve our educational mission.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When you delete a picture of woman masturbating you care more about the American view of sexuality than of a free encyclopedia. A young woman who grows up in a conservative American environment has a right to know what masturbation is and how it works. Just as a woman in the DPRK has the right to read about Christianity, or Ayn Rand, a person in Iran has the right to read about U.S.. You have started to censor the encyclopedia from an American POV, and without any kind of consensus here.

If it is not about Fox, why the rush? To send me the movielink is just arrogant, it's not me who will stop and censor knowledge. It is you who should watch the movie, and try to get back to your wonderful idea for Wikipedia. Remeber "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Not any more, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge who suit Christian Americans views on what is appropriate". That's what we're doing."--Ankara (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not about Fox, it is about our reputation in the world generally. We were hosting (and still are, frankly, because there's deletions that still need to be done) hardcore pornography not being used in any article and of no educational value.

And it is not about the "American view of sexuality," that argument just doesn't make any sense to me. The point of the video I asked you to watch is that she's a little girl in Peru. I don't know if you've ever been to America, and I don't know if you are aware of it, but the US is the world capital of the pornography industry, and pornography is widely available for sale, rent, and on the Internet.

If we rank countries on a spectrum of tolerance for this type of material, the US would not be the most tolerant, but it would be very very far from the least tolerant.

At the same time, I question what appears to be an assumption you're making even about your own country. I've been there, but of course I'm no expert on it, so I'll just ask you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a well known friend of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Remember what she says: Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. It is a contradiction between "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia deletes educational material that is used to illustrate articles because people do not think they are appropriate". What premise is wrong?

It is a contradiction between we are working for a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge and we are working for a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge who suit a conservative views on what is appropriat--Ankara (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales, you speedy deleted illustrations which were in use on en.wp because their wikiprojects decided it was more acceptable to have an illustration than an actual photo. How is this justified? Yes, we have illustrations of sexual acts - they're quite useful for encyclopaedic articles on said sexual acts, and thus are in scope. Heck, they were in scope automatically simply because they were in use. I join the calls for you to lose your admin status, as you clearly do not care for community consensus and established policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC) This appears to have been resolved. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So rather than answering to the legitimate concerns of the community, you would just rather wipe their concerns away: out of sight, out of mind, as if blanking their questions was part of this great cleanup mission? Elian had a great name for this behavior of yours: discussion beaming. --Melanom (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting discussions without comment or archiving is not acceptable behavior for an admin. Please remember you do not own your user space, none of us do. Any editor may restore any or all of the deleted material, if its inclusion is useful to the goals of the foundation. I encourage them to do so. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all archived in the history. If you want to make a separate archive page, you can do that if you want.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again. How nice to see we are censoring even though "Wikipedia is not censored" --Koolabsol (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to go on record again: I resent the fact that you would rather blank out (or: "archive") questions and concerns in order to "move on" than adress them properly. --Melanom (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Current and Recent Conversations

Per above, the ongoing and recent discussions have been restored here: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

In the flurry of activity this weekend, I made some mistakes, and I'm sorry about that. I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get rid of.

On the Commons:Sexual content policy page there is language about "high artistic, literary, educational or historical merit" - I fully support that language, and I think the important thing for us to do now is to start working on deeper explanations of what that means.

There is also language originally taken from USC 2257 which I think is useful but which I think can also be improved upon. The nice thing about a 3rd party statement is that it gives us a simple objective criterion - that's a good thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong series of deletions, including of some historical images,

Whoa whoa whoa.. Are you saying you intentionally chose to delete historical images that are allowed under the current Foundation rules???? --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, I thought I had a communications breakthrough there. Perhaps we could better understand your thought process if you elaborated on that answer. I respectfully ask:

Could you please shed any light on how it was you were able to delete the same piece of artwork multiple times without realizing that it does not violate the foundation's policies? (File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png) --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking, exactly. My view was that we should first take a very hardline interpretation of policy, while it is being refined, and then bring things back if, after due consideration, we find it worthwhile to do so. Policy will be in flux for awhile, as I have said, and both the board and the community are continuing discussions about it.

It currently seems that we are going to settle on a precautionary principle of sorts, in which our default assumption will be to not keep a wide variety of potentially offensive images, with exceptions (which I fully support) for images of particularly high artistic/literary/educational value. Your assistance in thinking about how to word that would be much appreciated.

Because the immediate crisis has passed - and the board has put out a first statement about this - I think it is time to take a slower pace. I don't think it's as important at the moment to deal with the borderline cases. I think the image you are asking about is a borderline case - of precisely the sort that we are going to want to have a serious discussion on a case-by-case basis as they come up. Before, I was of the view that we should deal with the borderline cases by deleting and then discussing undeletion. I think the image in question is borderline, meaning that I think reasonable people could say that it goes to far, and reasonable people could say that it is of sufficient historical importance to be kept. Does that help to answer your question?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. You didn't delete images that you felt were legit, but you deleted those you personally believed to be "borderline".

But why the rush? If it wasn't Fox News, why did you discontinue policy formation in favor of deleting first and asking questions later? --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I didn't "discontinue policy formulation" - I've encouraged that we work on it, throughout all of this, and I encourage it now. I think I understand what you're asking and where we may not have communicated. I think Fox News was about to publish a story that would get picked up very far and wide, all over the world, by dozens or even hundreds of respectable sources. And that story was going to be plain and simple and factual and very very bad. It was going to say "Wikipedia is hosting hundreds of hardcore pornographic images on their servers" - with detailed explanation of what they are.

There was a problem on Commons (and there is still work to be done!) and even people who are very mad at me for acting so quickly and stepping on people's toes (and I understand why people feel that way, I really do) tend to agree that there was a problem and that policy needed to be either much more strictly enforced or changed. (Your view on which it is likely depends on your view on what policy actually was).

As it stands now, the story is that we are working on cleaning up the problem. That's a good thing.

So to answer your question: it wasn't Fox per se that I was worried about - it was our global reputation, which was about to be smeared. I would have strongly preferred if we went through a quiet process over a long period of time. I don't like having people mad at me, obviously. I strongly support policy making through consensus, and I trust that the community is the best way we have to resolve complex issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You damages our reputation in Europe much more when you censor, censorship is much worse than pornography here. In many countries in Europe have your behavior much more potential to harm us than a few pornographic images. --Ankara (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued dialogue. I'm sure your job has always been a thankless one, particularly this week. Whatever happens, I firmly believe you are a good person who has made the world a better place. We don't say that often enough, so I'll say it again.

I'm glad to hear of your continued support for Consensus. I look forward to the day when you have regained the trust of the community that you lost this week. To that end, I'm going to ask you the $64,000 question everyone's freaking about. I think this will get us a big part of the way towards relaxation:

Will you will abide by a community consensus over what your user rights should be? --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to simply sidestep and remove that question completely by removing virtually all rights to actually do anything from the "Founder" flag. I can't block people. I can't delete things. I can no longer even edit semi-protected pages! (I can still view deleted revisions and so on, since I need those rights quite often.) Can we please now get back to discussing the real issues?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you complied with the community's consensus yet, or have you merely disabled some of your powers while still retaining the ability to restore them any time you choose?

According to John Vanderberg, you are still listed as a founder and still have access to all founder powers whenever you want. The community has reached a consensus that your founder flag is going to be removed. Until you have complied, getting you to comply with consensus is Wikimedia's top priority.

Sorry to be harsh, but consensus is consensus, rules are rules. If you can't comply with consensus, you're the biggest threat this project has. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to take JW at his word. removing virtually all rights to actually do anything from the "Founder" flag. I can't block people. I can't delete things. I can no longer even edit semi-protected pages! . I see an acceptance that this "cleanup" may not have been carried out as well as it could have been.

Let's try and move on and deal with the issue we still have not the stuff that is past. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you probably know JW better than me and if his gesture restored your trust, that's a good thing.

But the rest of the community is not convinced. We don't trust him anymore, we can no longer assume good faith and pray it will all work out-- it's far too late for that.

The founder flag may have ALWAYS been against consensus, but it's clearly against consensus now. And whether Jimbo will obey the community or not-- that's not a distraction, that's the most important issue on the project. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Echoing to some degree what Finn is saying below the Founder flag issue is a matter for Meta not Commons. Discussion about that should be there not here really. I would stress I probably know no more that the average wikimedian about JW however it does seem that, as far as Commons is concerned, he accepts that this may not be his greatest moment and has agree to take no admin action in this for now. That is enough for me to want to see things move forward.

Therefore we need to address the concerns over the questionable content of Commons (I'm sure quite a large number of people would acknowledge that there is some). Let's see if we can work on that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as Wales still has the power to restore his founder rights and do whatever he wants he's still a risk to the project. He's abused his powers. Very few people still trust him. He shouldn't have any special priviliges. You know, other users earn these priviliges because they are trusted. Wales isn't trusted by the community and therefore shouldn't have any special powers. It's bad enough that this vandal is a member of the foundation board, but as long as he's still here (the best thing would be if he left and never came back) he should have no special powers to wreak havoc on the projects. Entheta (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Very few people still trust him. And where do you get this from? Any representative polls I have missed? --Dschwen (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell us where to sign up and we will do so. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that is the problem. The rest of us doesn't give a crap and continues with the day to day business beyond the narrow porn-horizon. Kinks can be ironed out later. --Dschwen (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Precautionary principle. You deleted borderline images, and encouraged others to do the same, while in full knowlegde - because multiple people were telling you this - that this as disrupting the project, ruining yours and Commons' reputation, and that you were clearly acting against the developing consensus on the policy. You knew - or should have known - that in hundreds of deletions, it's going to take a LOT of sifting to find those borderline images, because there's no clear way to tell a borderline image from a clear delete from file name alone, and you were not marking borderline images any differently from what you saw as clear deletes. This meant that finding those borderline images would require admins to go into every single file, and look at every single image, just to find out if it was one of your borderline images or not. This was a gross lapse of judgement, and the best thing you could do is to simply make a statement, here and on foundation-l, where you state that such behaviour was a mistake. Because, while removing many of your privileges is going to assuage a lot of concerns, it's not going to bring people back unless they know about it, and have some clear sign it won't be happening again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Images which have been approved by local consensus to be used on local projects should definitely not have been deleted. This is a disregard to local projects and created havoc there. The WMF policy is that within the established framework we know, local projects are the ones which determine which images are appropriate for use on their project, and did not indicate this should change. So a Commons image used on a local project should not be deleted outside normal operations before giving local projects the opportunity to locally upload it. A cleanup was needed for the commons porn images not used by local projects but disregarding projects by deleting images they use without warning isn't acceptable practice. Cenarium (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again

What has happened has happened. If you want to beef about JW and the Founder flag go to Meta and do it. Personally I am content that Wales is unlikely to start using rights here in the way he has. If he were to do so it would be more than unfortunate. What is needed here is to get Commons moving forward. We do need some sexual content policy (I've deleted yet another penis today). If we do not take some steps towards doing that it would seem likely that we will find a policy imposed on us. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. To that end, I've done some work on it today. Pretty much went through and wrote up the stuff that it looked like noone disagreed with, so we could have a start, and move forwards from there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Adam - the work is appreciated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back from your Wikibreak. Sincerely not trying to be annoying, but, since we're both awake, let me be the first to ask: have you given any thought to voluntarily resigning your position as we have requested? The community is far more concerned about that than your policy proposals. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're more concerned about me than working on policy. Please work with me constructively on policy,rather than trying to stir up controversy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am a million times more concerned about your actions than the policies you used to justify them. You are the founder, and 200+ people believe you abused your tools. We all are more concerned about you than that specific policy. You need to see that. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, relax.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, :). We'll try. But I think we'd all have a lot more success at relaxation and policy formation if we knew that Wikimedia is still governed by consensus. Like, ya know, the 3-to-1 consensus against you keeping your powers. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, no one has to stir up controversy. I found out at least third-hand; I was informed of your acts of censorship by a non-editor, who learned about your behaviour from Fox News. I cannot believe that you would suggest that a "hardline" approach, undertaken outside of any form of attempt to achieve consensus, would not cause serious issues in this sort of community. You have created this controversy yourself, whether you agree with those you have offended or not. - BalthCat (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Asha_Haji_Elmi.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Asha_Haji_Elmi.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Huib talk 09:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See Huib's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Asha Haji Elmi 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Asha Haji Elmi 2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Huib talk 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

See Huib's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Two distinct issues here

Maybe for my clarity as much as anything but it may help others.

There are two quite distinct issues here

1. The handling of the removal of sexual content on Commons. Wrongly done and accepted as such by the look of things.
2. The need for the board to ensure that the reputation of the Foundation does not get ripped apart for a few (usually junk) images.

Some of the images that were deleted certainly should not have been (I notice an acknowledgement of this on Commons-l). Art works should remain here - after all this is serving an encyclopaedia among other things. Many of us would acknowledge that some content is a best questionable (I hate to think how many images of genitalia I've deleted over time).

So - how do we move this along to get good quality educational content here on Commons and ensure that we do not end up with a wide range of junk images looking ahead. Let's work towards that and getting back some of the good folk who have left please. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, the top priority is to prevent any further flaunting of consensus and rules. Jimbo must resign or convince the project to let him stay. But until Jimbo is a normal user, why even bother working on a policy he can overturn on a whim??? --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that comment and feel the same myself. However I think we have moved forward on that one (my posting above). Maybe we should try some of that "AGF" stuff and see where that takes us rather than worrying at a dead dog. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the "people who are very mad at [Jimbo] for acting so quickly and stepping on people's toes". I'm also one who "tend to agree that there was a problem and that policy needed to be either much more strictly enforced or changed". I believe there are two top priorities right now: For the community: getting a new policy/ guideline established so that we all know what to abide with, and as Jimbo/ WMF has contributed to overturning the old policy (or lack thereof), we need input and dialogue with them when doing so. The proper venue for that is probably Commons talk:Sexual content (please correct me if I'm wrong about where the discussion is (should be) taking place). For the owner of this talk page I'd say that the top priority right now should be to reestablish the trust between the Commons community and himself/ WMF. We need to know that we are trusted and that the considerable work done here by volunteers is appreciated and respected. We need assurances that any future actions taken by the WMF regarding policies or lack (of following) thereof at Commons will be taken in dialogue with the Commons community. It is also crucial that active steps are taken to get back those contributors who have left us recently. I think Jimbos recent postings above on this page are steps in the right direction.

Jimbos continued role as board member and holder of the "founder flag" is better discussed elsewhere (there are some discussions at Meta), but for me this has been dealt with in the best possible manner with Jimbo himself removing the ability to block and delete from his account. It's not a technical question, but the obvious intention that he isn't going to perform blocks or deletions that's important. Any principal further clarification on this is not a top priority for me. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO there is one more issue and that is actually the most serious one. Many Wikipedians around the world feel that the whole issue emerged from reporting on FOX TVs web page. Many Wikipedians are concerned about how appearantly neoconservative media can influence deciscions made in the wikipedia, at the commons or, more important, within the WMF board of trustees. The statement Mr. Snow has made yesterday doesn't helpt this either, pitifully. Aside from violating elementary principles like consensus and the neutral point of view that's the main problem and it's the most serious one. Wikipedians around the world don't like the idea that the WMF might be influcenced by media echo or whatsoever. That's why the WMF lost widespread the trust we used to have into it and I fear that the next fundraising campaign will show the results. The most important thing on the Wikiepdia, Jimbo, is it's indipendence. Is Wikipedia still independent? Many Wikipedians are doubtful.

We also saw acting of other admins, jumping onto the train unasked doing so. IMO they should have removed their status as admins because they helped to raise the high level of emotions still a part higher. That is absolutely inteolerable.

Another thing is that you, Jimbo, have to accept that almost every culture on the world has it's own criteria about what is porn and what is not. Many of the images deleted might have been porn in Kentucky or other part of the U.S., but they aren't necessarily in other parts of the world. w:Basic Instinct f.ex. isr rated R in the US, in German 16, in Sweden 15 and in France (re)rated 12 (I guess when re-rated in Germany it will be rated 12 as well; actually I think it was initially rated 16 because of the blood and the brutality of the murders depicted and not for nudity). File:Angelina Ash 4.jpg is not porn, that's what any average go go dancer in an average European disco shows the visitors each weekend – with 16- or 17-year-old party goers being present. On the other side, File:Pamela-Anderson-040929.jpg might be a disturbing image in many Arab countries. However, Commons is a website intended for us all. Not the most "conservative" criteria should imposed here (then we could only accept women photographies like File:Burqa Afghanistan 01.jpg. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Matthiasb made several exellent points. Since the level of concern on an international level is obviously still very high, it would be very helpful if you could share your opinion on matthiasb's text and the topics mentioned here with the community. Nemissimo (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have responded

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Abigor's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Huib talk 18:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo: Do you watchlist talk pages you edit? If so, just ignore this: follow-up to your question there is also at User_talk:Abigor. Lupo 20:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a technical solution

I suggested this previously, but as it is now buried in the page history and probably was "buried" from the start in the whole commotion, I'm taking the liberty of repeating what I think could be a solution that would satisfy all sides. Well: it seems that most agree that some of the images depicting explicit sexual activity are nevertheless of value for Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, e.g. notable works of art or images suitable for illustrating an encyclopedic topic. Commons therefore should host such images. However, maybe it is problematic that it's possible to view e.g. images of sexual practices here on Commons without the encyclopedic context they have in Wikipedia - so the same image may seem gratuitous and/or offensive to a visitor who visits Commons directly, but appear completely different to a reader who finds it embedded in an appropriate Wikipedia article, illustrating the subject. Maybe technical measures could be implemented that show images that may seem offensive only as part of the encyclopedic articles where they serve an educational purpose? I.e. the images and their categories would be hidden from the casual websurfer here on Commons. A flag for registered editors could be implemented that allows viewing the categories/images on Commons to be able to find material for articles. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If the ability to browse explicit content is accepted by consensus as a problem. This sounds like an excellent solution. Editors must be able to build educational pages on different projects and in different contexts from a range of material. They will have debates about what is suitable: it is not for the Commons to decide these for them in advance. --Simonxag (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not have Jimbo create a daughter project for Wikimedia Commons to host such images? Schools would be able to filter that single project out without the need for complicating Commons. Perhaps only certain users would register (18+ maybe?). ZooFari 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't quite like that idea because it will get portrayed as "the WMF is hosting a site for free porn." On the other, I believe this is a necessary option to ensure that Commons can be used in primary schools around the world. Great proposal, ZooFari; let's see if anyone takes notice. —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a flickr-style flagging system is a useful alternative, and the board discussion is likely to move to revolve around that. The idea here is that people ought not be to shocked by content that they find offensive - in any context - because shock isn't what we're after, but rather to offer knowledge to people to use as they see fit. If offensive content has no educational purpose, we shouldn't host it at all. If it has a high degree of artistic/historical/cultural/educational/etc value, then we should host it - but not shove it in people's faces in a way that would surprise them. (Notice that I've tried to state this carefully to leave open questions relating to what kind of potentially offensive content - images of Muhammad are a prime example where we need them for educational purposes, but at present, we shock people with them in a way that is likely unnecessary.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has uploaded recently deleted sexual images with the intent of them being used in sex education articles, I would support such a technical solution though I would have concerns about how "scope-creep" would be managed. One could imagine restricting sex education images featuring explicit photographs of genitals, but would we restrict images of sex-toys, bondage or piercings, none of which could be considered explicit in most of Europe where such images are shown on prime-time television or images which could be interpreted as breaking regional laws such as images that may be considered to promote homosexuality? Saunaboy (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think those are valid questions, but they don't seem too difficult to resolve. One thing I think we can all agree on is that waiting for a perfect solution before doing anything just leaves us in the current mess. I trust that we can figure out the borderline cases. I think one thing we have to guard against, as you say, is "scope-creep" - but we also have to guard against extremists who refuse to acknowledge that quality editorial judgment requires sensitivity to the educational needs and situations of readers. When you think about children in remote villages in Peru or India who may be forbidden to look at Wikipedia (again, I encourage people to stop thinking about Europe and the US, since as far as I can tell, norms are quite similar between the two, and I travel a lot) if their parents see hardcore video of extreme sex practices - when you think about those children, this starts to look a lot easier and a grown up solution seems well within reach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes: “But think about the CHILDREN!” Now where have I heard that before? Most likely from some despicable politicians who wanted to shove some kind of censorship down the public's throat. Not a good argument from them, and not a good argument from you. --Rosenzweig δ 14:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion would be quite a bit easier if people weren't misusing the term censorship so often. --Dschwen (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and mocking a genuine issue by mocking "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is not at all helpful, Rosenzweig. When we think about how Wikipedia is used all around the world, by all kinds of people, thinking about the children is an important part of what we will do, as responsible and thoughtful people. Not every argument that involves concern for the genuine interests of parents with respect to their children involves someone trying to ram something down your throat. (More often, the reaction I see from some quarters, is a desire to ram something down those parent's throat - a kind of insensitivity to cultural values that I find unfortunate.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this: you stop invoking en:think of the children, and in return everyone else will stop invoking en:censorship. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree with the principle of finding ways of ensuring wide international access to an independent encyclopaedia. I do take issue with taking knee-jerk reactions against perceived extremists. Considering children in Peru and India (I happen to have relatives in India, so it's not just an abstract issue for me), many of these children are at risk of HIV infection, poor sex education and poor support for sexual minorities such as teenage transsexuals (e.g. Hijra in India with the associated history of botched self-castration). Practical information on safe sexual practices, sexual identity and human sexual diversity is exactly what Wikipedia should strive to provide and images help ensure the information is easy to understand. Creating a politically "child-safe" version of Wikipedia and consequently making it easy for authorities to restrict or track access to the "adult" encyclopaedia will guarantee that more children will fail to understand these topics, instead relying on myth and superstition from their immediate peers. My issue with dealing with extremists is that they are at both ends of the spectrum and "we must protect the children" is more often misused to promote a religious or anti-libertarian agenda rather than taking action to ensure what is best for children in the long term. These issues would have been better considered dispassionately and with general consensus before taking action. Saunaboy (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Saunaboy, I absolutely do agree that practical information on safe sexual practices, sexual identity and human sexual diversity is well within our remit. That's a very far cry from being a free porn hosting company. In the middle, where reasonable people will work to sort things out, is a complex business of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Dear Mr Wales, I noticed in the news today that you have deleted some of the pornographic material on Wikimedia Commons, and I would like to thank you for it. As a parent, I have been alarmed to see how extensive the problem is on this website, which users appear to condone as 'educational'. I raised this issue recently, asking for several photographs to be deleted. They all appear to have been retained, although I have found you deleted one. Thank you for that one, but I would ask you to look at the contributions I have made to see the other photographs I found which serve no purpose. For the moment I am still uncomfortable to allow my son to access this website and Wikipedia. I have had my doubts about Wikipedia for a long time over factual accuracy but seeing this website reached a tipping point. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Concerned parent - The Cleaner (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered letting your child use a computer with a content filter ? TheDJ (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)