Talk:Wikimedia Foundation addresses controversial content conflict
Original Reporting notes
editAll factual statements are drawn from the logs of Commons.Wikimedia.org, excepting the date Mr Wales's administrative rights were removed: no log entry has been found for this action either on Meta or on Commons. (That they do not currently exist was confirmed via Commons's User List.)
Quote from Adam Cuerden was drawn from an article draft. Quote from Jan-Bart was drawn from an Internet Relay Chat interview, the relevant section reproduced here (times PDT):
- [12:28pm] Jan-Bart: here you go
- [12:30pm] Jan-Bart: "the board thinks that this is an important issue, we realise that there are MANY point of view on this. The one thing we don't want to do is draw hasty conclusions. We have therefore asked Sue to do more research into the matter. Our aim would be to get a complete picture of all the aspects and then see if we need next steps. If there are to be next steps, we will take these together with...
- [12:30pm] Jan-Bart: ...the community.
Original documents consulted are linked under sources.
Interview transcript
editWould it be a good idea to post the interview transcript as well? It would be nice reading material for our audience. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the relevant clip from the transcript of Diego Grez's interview with Adam Cuerden:
<AdamCuerden> ...Yeah, that's the other thing he did: He inissted it couldn't be discussed for a month.
<Diego_Grez> Should I add that too? :)
<AdamCuerden> Sure.
<AdamCuerden> Let's see... Oh, yes, he never once said this was about a media campaign. He made it sound like this was for legal reasons
<AdamCuerden> The media campaign angle only came out AFTER his deletion spree.
<AdamCuerden> Which, as you can imagine, did not make the people he deceived very pleased at all.
<AdamCuerden> He basically lied to us from the start.
<AdamCuerden> First, by acting as if this was for legal reasons. Second, by pretending he was listening to us, right up to his art deletion. Third, by never once plainly stating what appears to have been his plan throughout the entire event: To delete everything until Fox News was looking away
<AdamCuerden> He played us for fools. He undermined the moral authority Commons holds, which protected us against things like the "images of Muhammad" and (although on en-wiki) the "Virgin Killer" controversies.
<AdamCuerden> Are you familioar with those?
<Diego_Grez> Yes, I have read about that.
...
<Diego_Grez> The article was deleted because you said you don't wanted your name there.
<Diego_Grez> Do you want your name published or not? :)
<AdamCuerden> Well, I'd prefer it not be in the title, anyway
<Diego_Grez> OK. But can I still put it on the article?
<AdamCuerden> I mean, if the focus is on Jimbo, anyway
<AdamCuerden> Sure.
I imagine Diego's draft and notes will eventually be deleted. (He didn't date the interview, but he posted it on May 22.)
Amgine, do you have anything else from Jan-Bart to post in the talk page, such as the question you asked, or any on the record answers you chose not to include in the article?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I asked him if he would be willing to make an on-the-record comment regarding the release of the board resolution. Because the conversation up until that point was officially off the record, I cannot publish the discussions leading up to his statement. - Amgine | t 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
@InfantGorilla There's no real need to delete the article I produced, after all, I would like to keep it for the record. Thanks! --Diego Grez return fire 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Children?
editI have reviewed the article and it is fine to go except for one important question.
- The article contains the phrase "images which were targeted as possible child-porn,". Why the word "child"?
From what I recall of the debate (and I mostly only read about images that were restored, not those that remain deleted), Jimmy Wales deleted a variety of explicit images, and age was rarely mentioned. If we can agree on another phrase that doesn't emphasise children, I recommend that a fellow reviewer goes ahead to publish it.
My suggestions:
- a selection of explicit photographs and engravings
- images which he considered to have only pornographic uses
- possibly pornographic images
I don't mind which.
Otherwise, explain why the word "child" is useful, and re-review.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Although child-porn was ostensibly the impetus, you're right - that seems to have been part of the 'spin' added to this later. Mr Wales's initiating edit talks exclusively about sexual content, not specifically child-porn. (The larger story, of course, is the paedophilia accusations from Mr Sanger being promulgated by FOX news.) Go ahead and pull the 'child-' off that sentence. - Amgine | t 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Review of revision 1051843 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 1051843 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm not hot on the idea of Wikimedia related stories, but the combined work of Amgine and Deigo has produced an acceptable result. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1051843 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm not hot on the idea of Wikimedia related stories, but the combined work of Amgine and Deigo has produced an acceptable result. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |