[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

Sun May 9 00:19:51 UTC 2010

Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

> Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
> pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
> difficuilt to revert. On any other project if you delete something it
> is just a local issue. But deleting a picture on Commons which was
> used on many other project for years is really hiting all those
> projects, not only Commons.

We're arguing the same thing.  :)

Anthony wrote:

> So fix commons-delinker.  Or shut it off altogether.

1. We don't usually have this problem, as Commons administrators
seldom go on controversial deletion sprees (and when they do, other
administrators aren't powerless to counter their actions).

2. Even without CommonsDelinker, editors at the various projects will
remove broken image transclusions when they discover them.

> OMG.  Red links would indicate to a human that there was a problem which
> needed to be solved.  Then that human could go about solving the problem
> (which very well may involve more than just delinking the image).

What, other than delinking or uploading the missing image locally
(thereby bypassing Commons), do you expect a wiki to do?  And how do
you expect editors who cannot read English (particularly those whose
native languages are among the less widespread) to even understand why
in-use images are being deleted?

> And deletions are easily reversible.

I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread.

"Deletions are easily reversible.  Multi-wiki image transclusion
removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations from
Wikimedia projects?  Less so."

David Levy