[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

Mon May 10 05:25:43 UTC 2010

2010/5/9 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>:
(..)
>> For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
>> effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
>> direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
>> board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
>> topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of
>> foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions.
>> If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my
>> believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the
>> problem.
>
> Ting
>
> I see no indication so far that the community *is* able to solve the problem.

Sorry, I have never posted here, but I feel so sad reading such
words... and other words spoken here at foundation-l.. the projects
under the umbrella of WMF are so beautiful, so precious, to be treated
this way... =~~~~

But well, so that's the reason Jimmy Wales must be so authoritarian?
Because the Community of Commons can't solve this issue through
consensus?

Is solving this particular issue really more important than reaching
consensus? Why?

Are you a member of the Board of Trustees or something? Could you
inform me if the whole board has this kind of position?

BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees? They are serving the interests of who? And who can revoke
the trust upon a specific trustee, or the entire board, in the event
it was misused?

Please don't say "the community".

PS: I may look inquisitive, but I see this anti-porn campaign
contrasting to the complete lack of action when it was found that
wiki-en was grossly offending Islam for no better reason. I must cite
this post:

2010/5/7 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>:
(..)
> Did you see what Jimmy deleted? For example, Franz von Bayros painting
> [1]. That guy is not so famous, but I don't see anymore any sane rule,
> except: What Jimmy's sexually impaired super rich friend wish, Jimmy
> do and then Board transform into the rule or a statement.
>
> Besides the fact that he was dealing just with Western taboos of naked
> body and sexual act, not with Mohamed cartoons [2] at English
> Wikipedia, where he is the God King.
>
> If the Board stays behind such action, this is a very clear signal
> that Wikimedia projects are becoming censored. And if Jyllands-Posten
> Muhammad cartoons won't be deleted, then Wikimedia projects are a tool
> of Western cultural imperialism.
>
> I want to hear other Board members before making my decision about staying here.

Since Jimmy is "special", for some reason, and his actions will not
face the consequences that is expected for common editors, admins,
bureaucrats, etc. I must say that images of Muhammad is not being
deleted *just because Jimmy is not Muslim*.

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva <tolkiendili at gmail.com>