Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Where things stand now

 

 

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jwales at wikia-inc

May 8, 2010, 6:08 AM

Post #1 of 19 (2794 views)
Permalink
Where things stand now

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
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.


--
Jimmy Wales

Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales

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


vasilvv at gmail

May 8, 2010, 6:19 AM

Post #2 of 19 (2762 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia-inc> wrote:
> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
> and doing nothing about it.

Do you understand that not all images you deleted were hardcore pornography?
What was the reason of wheel warring on them?

--vvv

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


jayvdb at gmail

May 8, 2010, 6:25 AM

Post #3 of 19 (2742 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia-inc> wrote:
>
> ... I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.

You mistook people's toes for porn, three times, and you're sorry?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AF%C3%A9licien+Rops+-+Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png

I'd rather have a factual story about the problem on Commons than a
muddled story that includes our "leader" being heavy handed in order
to censor the Commons.

--
John Vandenberg

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


sterkebak at gmail

May 8, 2010, 6:28 AM

Post #4 of 19 (2745 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

Dear mr Wales,

I don't understand you, I really don't

You are saying you want to clean up Commons from hardcore porn but you are
deleting art work or pictures that doesn't even show boobs.

Did you just nuke or did you look at what you did?




--
Huib "Abigor" Laurens

Tech team
www.wikiweet.nl - www.llamadawiki.nl - www.forgotten-beauty.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


pieterc.depraetere at ugent

May 8, 2010, 6:31 AM

Post #5 of 19 (2756 views)
Permalink
Where things stand now [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You clearly missed the point do you?

Nobody has the power to declare policy at commons but the community and
the board. You are neither. You have behaved like a vandal, and every
other user would have been blocked ad infinitum. This is not about porn,
this about you abusing your status in the most evil way anyone could
have imagined. If you had followed the correct procedure, instead of
going on a deletion spree, everything would have been settled and most
images would have been deleted anyway.

This is unacceptible behaviour and is inexcusable. Delete first and
discuss later is not the way commons works and it has never worked that
way. You say you are proud? Well, you can be proud. You have destroyed
all confidence people had in you, and frankly, you don't deserve any better.

If you think stepping toes is the right way to do it, perhaps you should
state instead of "an encyclopaedia everyone can edit" "a site that is
run in accordance with the whims and fancies of the former owner".

A disgruntled former Commons admin.

- -----------------
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
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.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=V1NQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


yannfo at gmail

May 8, 2010, 6:36 AM

Post #6 of 19 (2754 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

Hello Jimmy,

2010/5/8 Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia-inc>
>
> 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.

Some deleted images are certainly not hardcore pornography.

> 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
> 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.
>
> Jimmy Wales

Some cleaning may be needed regarding sexual content, but the way you
did it is hardly the good way to do it. Many contributors are pissed
off and upset. This is certainly not the best way to start a
meaningful discussion on a controversial topic. I think the Commons
community is well suited to take a decision regarding sexual content.
Your input on this subject would certainly have been regarded with the
most careful consideration. But acting under external pressure is not
a good think.

Regards,

Yann

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


mrzmanwiki at gmail

May 8, 2010, 6:47 AM

Post #7 of 19 (2715 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On 5/8/2010 9:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> 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
> 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.
>
>

The correct story line now is that Wikimedia is purging historical works
by notable artists and bending due to pressure from American
conservative "media." Outside of Fox news, I've yet to see any pickup of
this by any significant media outlet.[1]

The way I see it, with the rushed and ham-fisted way this was done,
we'll be lucky if it doesn't completely backfire on us and the
non-conservative media doesn't make it look like we're burning books or
that they misconstrue it and assume we've adopted some sort of outright
no-nudity policy.

[1] http://bit.ly/d8y5vy

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

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


amorymeltzer at gmail

May 8, 2010, 7:29 AM

Post #8 of 19 (2753 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
think some perspective is useful.

Jimbo deleted 71 images.

That doesn't call for outright rage.

~A

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


kim at bruning

May 8, 2010, 7:52 AM

Post #9 of 19 (2747 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:29:45AM -0400, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
> whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
> think some perspective is useful.
>
> Jimbo deleted 71 images.
>
> That doesn't call for outright rage.

*Nod.*

I agree that a lot of the rage is due to it being blown out of proportion, in
part, this is due to inadequate communication and followup from the side of Jwales.

factors:
* he could have taken commons delinker into account. It might take a little
while to fix images that shouldn't have been deleted. He was informed of the
issue of in-use images, but chose to ignore it.
* He shouldn't have encouraged others to follow his example without being
more clear about what that example entailed
* He could have gotten almost the same bang for his buck (and a lot less
smoke) by being just a little smarter about things, and following up with
people 1:1
* We sort of expect Jimbo Wales to have a bit more clue about how to do
things. Even if just displaying clue without necessarily deviating from
the course. "Yeah it sucks, but for political reasons it's kind of
important to shoot first and ask questions later, for now. And it's only
for these 71 images, you see, not much work to restore just the few we
mess up"


sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


jayvdb at gmail

May 8, 2010, 7:57 AM

Post #10 of 19 (2746 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Amory Meltzer <amorymeltzer [at] gmail> wrote:
> I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
> whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
> think some perspective is useful.
>
> Jimbo deleted 71 images.
>
> That doesn't call for outright rage.

Jimmy wheel-warred to force a number of perfectly acceptable images to
stay deleted.

And nobody felt comfortable blocking him for what would have resulted
in a quick block if it was anyone else going crazy and refusing to
listen to other admins.

Combined, that is what people are outraged about at the moment. And
this is not the first time that he has gone overboard.

--
John Vandenberg

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


mike.lifeguard at gmail

May 8, 2010, 8:38 AM

Post #11 of 19 (2742 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
> 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.

I think that's fairly naive, actually. I'd rather suspect the story Fox
(which seems to be your main concern) will go with is "We were right all
along, they *were* hosting kiddie porn! Just look, they deleted it all
after we exposed their filthy secret."

As I said earlier, your actions make us look guilty when we're not. If
we had had a reasoned discussion about it instead of you wildly flailing
at the "delete" button, then we could have actually pointed at
[[Category:Pedophilia]] to demonstrate that we *don't* actually host
illegal materials. On this, I am in complete agreement with Greg Maxwell.

There *is* cleanup to do. And there *is* PR to worry about. But your
actions have been counterproductive on both issues. Give Jay a pat on
the back for me next you see him.

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvlhXsACgkQst0AR/DaKHvPXgCeIUTB7R9gliULGJtKULcIdm4Y
YSgAoM9WHrNHPsATesa2Pz3sYmkpPfS5
=Q8qc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


fordmadoxfraud at gmail

May 8, 2010, 8:55 AM

Post #12 of 19 (2743 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

*I think that's fairly naive, actually. I'd rather suspect the story Fox
(which seems to be your main concern) will go with is "We were right all
along, they *were* hosting kiddie porn! Just look, they deleted it all
after we exposed their filthy secret."

*What you're saying is that Fox News would have ran a negative story about
us either way. And if that's really the case, I'm glad it was a negative
story the community was actively doing something about, rather than a
negative story we did nothing about.

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


z at mzmcbride

May 8, 2010, 9:06 AM

Post #13 of 19 (2738 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
> 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.

So you created this much disruption as a public relations stunt?

> Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible
> policy discussion.

No. The key is that you're willfully ignorant, willfully aloof, or some
horrible combination of the two. How many people have to say "YOU'RE FUCKING
UP" before you'll listen? Nobody had an issue with the deletion of some of
the hardcore, homemade, bad porn that you deleted. But, like a bull in a
china shop, you simply couldn't stop yourself, could you? And when people
pointed out your errors, rather than say "I'm sorry" and restore the images,
you re-deleted and continued your rampage.

Anything for a headline? What a jackass you are.

MZMcBride



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


yannfo at gmail

May 8, 2010, 9:12 AM

Post #14 of 19 (2733 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

Hello,

2010/5/8 David Moran <fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail>:
> *I think that's fairly naive, actually. I'd rather suspect the story Fox
> (which seems to be your main concern) will go with is "We were right all
> along, they *were* hosting kiddie porn! Just look, they deleted it all
> after we exposed their filthy secret."
>
> *What you're saying is that Fox News would have ran a negative story about
> us either way.  And if that's really the case, I'm glad it was a negative
> story the community was actively doing something about, rather than a
> negative story we did nothing about.

The fact that the actions are done following pressure from such a
biased entity as Fox News is bad in itself, independently of the
(wrong) way the deletions were done.

> FMF

Regards,

Yann

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


mike.lifeguard at gmail

May 8, 2010, 9:15 AM

Post #15 of 19 (2741 views)
Permalink
Where things stand now [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> And when people pointed out your errors, rather than say "I'm sorry"
> and restore the images, you re-deleted and continued your rampage.

That sounds eerily reminiscent of what Mike Godwin said about Fox news:
"when their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble
their aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their
original story."

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvljh8ACgkQst0AR/DaKHtuTQCcDgMO5mzbMU9+GsntrL5fi+xg
4U4AoMDwOKRo1YSCRbQJu+2NceXkpQMZ
=+Dws
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


jwales at wikia-inc

May 9, 2010, 2:11 AM

Post #16 of 19 (2721 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On 5/8/10 3:29 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
> whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
> think some perspective is useful.
>
> Jimbo deleted 71 images.
>
> That doesn't call for outright rage.

And I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a
discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first
deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after
careful case by case discussions.

That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it.

--Jimbo

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


jwales at wikia-inc

May 9, 2010, 2:13 AM

Post #17 of 19 (2717 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On 5/8/10 5:06 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
>> 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.
>
> So you created this much disruption as a public relations stunt?

No, and I'm glad that we're now moving forward on resolving the problem.
I'm sorry I acted with such urgency, but I think it was necessary.

--Jimbo

--
Jimmy Wales

Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales

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


kim at bruning

May 9, 2010, 7:21 AM

Post #18 of 19 (2716 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 5/8/10 3:29 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> > I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
> > whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
> > think some perspective is useful.
> >
> > Jimbo deleted 71 images.
> >
> > That doesn't call for outright rage.
>
> And I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a
> discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first
> deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after
> careful case by case discussions.
>
> That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it.

Sure, your strategy was fairly sound. And things always go wrong in the
heat of battle. So that part actually went fairly well.

There were some issues in communications, though:
As part of a root cause analysis at some future date:
* You did not adequately communicate your strategy or urgency
beforehand. (Though you did clearly try)
* You did not pick up on signals from others when you were causing
collateral damage. (Don't reject what people are telling you.
When warned: Act with caution, use discretion)
* Some of your early statements created an atmosphere where people
did not feel comfortable cooperating or communicating with you, which
meant that you were somewhat precluded from receiving optimal,
reliable, timely intelligence in the first place. (Don't threaten
to block people for talking back at you)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


wikimail at inbox

May 9, 2010, 9:21 AM

Post #19 of 19 (2708 views)
Permalink
Re: Where things stand now [In reply to]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia-inc> wrote:

> And I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a
> discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first
> deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after
> careful case by case discussions.
>
> That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it.
>

Needs to be added to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point

---
*'''If''' you feel that Wikipedia is hosting pornographic images with no
educational usefulness.
**'''do''' start a deletion discussion for those images which you feel cross
the line
**'''don't''' delete a lot of borderline things, and then expect others to
bring them back after careful case by case discussions.
---

Yeah, it didn't happen on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it can't be used
as an example on Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.