User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 5

Archiving

Is there a form of automated archiving available on commons? I'd like this page to be archived in the same way that my en.wikipedia user page is archived, if possible. What do I need to do here to make that happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a archive bot I can add it to your talkpage if you want. How much days do you want a topic to stay before it gets archived? Huib talk 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think set it to 3 for now. On en, I keep it at 1, but it's a fair bit busier over there - usually! :-) Thank you for helping me with this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the template for automatic archiving at the top of your page; you'll probably want to tweak it, so here's the documentation. –Tryphon^☂ 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed MiszaBot and renamed the archive to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 1 and added Template:Archive box. I think it will best to manually archive until the problems with MiszaBot, for example Template:Talkarchivenav needs to copied over from enwiki along with dependents. Could somebody please propose this? Seems too minor to need consensus. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What problems are there with MiszaBot? It works fine for me over on en.wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people doesn't understand that this is Commons and the archive bot works in a different way as the English Wikipedia, those people are trying to make this bot work the same but will make a mess of your talkpage.. any problem if we just archive as all pages on Commons Jimmy ? Huib talk 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not quite following you. How does it work differently here? I don't really know what you mean about archiving all pages on Commons. I'm really sorry to be so dense. :-( --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The archiving system could be set up the same was as Wikipedia, but it would take many hours of work importing and adapting the right templates. It's easier to work with the scripts we have. What can be done is changing the minthreadsleft to a lower number (like 1 or 0) and/or changing the algo from 7d to few days (like 3d). You can change these yourself Jimbo if you would like. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Replacing emotion with logic

This has all got very emotive. What is needed is not emotion, but a draft of a policy to determine what belongs in the commons, and what does not. A policy consists of rules and guidelines. Rules are clear definitions of what is not allowed, and which cannot be broken. Guidelines are not definite rules, but provide help on how to interpret the rules, or how to deal with situations not covered by rules.

To develop rules and guidelines that form the policy, start by looking at the reasons and thinking and broad principles that underlie this project (or which should underlie it). One such broad principle (and a very important one) is that Wikipedia exists to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet [1].

To make a start, I have given a number of arguments against what is perceived as 'censorship' together with some suggested replies. The replies are based on my understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. Perhaps they could form part of a future policy on acceptable images. Please note these are just suggestions. Please feel free to suggest further arguments, and further replies. And please remember to address them as arguments. The validity of an argument does not depend on whether the premisses are true or false. It depends on whether the conclusion could possibly be false, given the truth of the premisses. If so, the argument is invalid, and should be ignored, or qualified or modified in some way until it is valid.

Also, please move this from Jimbo's talk page if this is not relevant. I place it here because of the recent controversy, and because it is a widely viewed page. And because this is an important issue.

• The 'no censorship' argument. Wikipedia is not censored, ergo at least one cumshot image should exist.
  • My suggested reply: Wikipedia is not censored, but it is quality controlled. All content should be informational and strictly educational. A cumshot may be educational, of course, but that is not the point. The 'no censorship' argument is not a valid argument in the present case.
• The 'statue of liberty' argument. If at least one cumshot image is allowed, there should be no upper limit on the number of cumshot images, on the grounds that there is no upper limit on the number of images of the statue liberty.
  • My suggested reply: there is a logical difference between an image of a cumshot, and the image of the statue. The more images you have of the statue, the more this project looks like an encyclopedia. The more images you have of the cumshot, the less it looks like an encyclopedia.
• The 'potential use' argument. There are many images on commons which are not used in the main Wikipedia project, nor have any obvious potential use. Here is an example of one I uploaded some years ago, never used so far. Therefore we should not delete any sexually image on the grounds that it has no obvious use.
  • My suggested reply: As above: a proliferation of sexually explicit images tends to make the project look less like an encyclopedia, and more like an amateur porn site. The default position, which should be part of any policy, should be aimed at protecting and enhancing the reputation of Wikipedia & sister projects as a reliable educational resource. Therefore, regarding sexually explicit images, the burden of proof should be on the uploader to prove that the image has potential as well as real educational value. That is to say, while I do not need to prove that an image from an old book has educational value (and I would suggest that any sexually explicit from an old book has educational value by reason of its age), I do need to prove that a sexually explicit image of recent origin has educational value, by showing how it may be used, even to the level of what kind of article it would support.
• The 'ignore the children' argument. Wikipedia is not here to protect children. We do not have to 'think of the children'
  • My suggested reply: Wikipedia is not here per se to protect children. It is here to provide an educational resource. And hence it is widely used by those of school age, as an educational resource. Great care should be given to making the Wikipedia readership as wide and broad and deep as possible. Putting off readers (or their parents, or their teachers, or their school boards) is inimical to the purported objective of the Wikipedia project, which is to prove the sum of all human knowledge (think about that last term) to every single person on the planet. That objective should override all other considerations (such as the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a porn repository, thus of minority interest only, and thus not available to everyone on the planet.
• The 'jurisdiction' argument. Different jurisdictions have different views on the legality of images. Wikipedia should not be constrained by such subjective considerations.
  • My suggested reply: Clearly a compromise need to be made. If some jurisdication of some small country outlaws an image that within the US or Europe is perfectly legal, probably the image should be kept, at the risk of restricting the readership of Wikipedia. But, again, the overriding principle of Wikipedia is to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet. A conflict between this principle, and the principle that that the project should include anything of 'educational value', as judged by Western standards, is unavoidable. So, how to make the compromise? Suggestions? Should we start by tabulating what is acceptable under the main jurisdictions? Is there any material available on Wikipedia itself, that may help?

Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

[edit] In other jurisdictions or cultures or faiths:

• India
• Africa
• Indonesia, where "Nudity or appearances that give an impression of nudity" are off limits. Anyone who is a "model" for pornography could also be punished with a lengthy prison term and a fine, a definition that would seem to include fine arts models.
• Islam - "Pornographic pictures and movies are haram (prohibited). Muslims should not watch, sell or make such movies. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: 'The eyes commit adultery, the tongue commits adultery, the hands commit adultery, the feet commit adultery and then the private parts confirm it or deny it."

Peter Damian (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

[edit] This image [2] is a particularly interesting one. It's hardly offensive at all. Some might regard it as a work of art (I regard it as verging on en:kitsch). I would apply the 'potential use' test. If that photo were an article on Wikipedia, it would immediately be deleted as 'original research'. It's by some amateur photographer somewhere, perhaps a professional one, who is trying to get publicity for their work. So, prove what article it could possibly support? Perhaps an article about the photographer? Yes, but only if it's a notable work by a personal notable enough (I suspect not) to have their own article. Perhaps an article about soft porn? Yes, but only if the article is well-referenced and if the image is a notable example of the genre. Perhaps an article about women? Yes, but the problem here is that the photo is attempting to be 'arty' in a soft porn way. This would be 'noise' in an article about women. And many women might find it offensive for that reason. Back to 'original research'. If the photo were 100 years old it would be different. The educational interest would be in how people viewed women in 1910, how such a picture might have been viewed offensive in 1910 and so on. In 2010 were are just too close to the image to form an objective view, and any view is going to be 'original research'.Peter Damian (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Actually the image would be an interesting replacement of the garden gnome in en:kitsch. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good picture. It might be used in an article related to photography, or toplessness. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the paragraph above was that is wasn't a very good picture. Peter Damian (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Several of your points have been considered in various discussions I've joined. First, regarding encyclopedicness and cumshots, it is fairly clear that we should favor more encyclopedic names and descriptions in general usage, and this has been proposed and seems well favored in the draft Commons:sexual content. We may still have an en.wikipedia article w:Cum shot, and a Wiktionary entry wikt:cumshot, because the encyclopedia, like the dictionary, is unabridged. Next, COM:PS has long excluded the accumulation of infinite numbers of genital shots, as the educational value is weak to nil. And where "potential use" is concerned, Commons isn't trying to look like an encyclopedia - it's trying to look like an archive of educationally useful images.

Now as for "protecting the children", I gave an explanation in my draft of Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ: I think our so-called "porn" actually protects children. I say this because Wikipedia is a hard hat area, a place where content is built, and anyone is free to edit here. We can't tell you that there aren't pedophiles on this site, because we're not checking identification cards when you get an account. All that taking down such "porn" would do would be to give parents the illusion that their children are safe, when in fact they could be chatting with a pedophile about a place to meet, or reading how to make nitroglycerine. But we are making a child-safe resource, because we're generating the free content that any group can take and reuse that is interested in making an encyclopedia that excludes particular material. The only thing we're not doing is making that last decision about what your kids should and shouldn't be reading, because that's not a decision that everyone makes the same way. Wnt (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Social networking policies

NOTE: Erotic art and posture are a sort of social expression with the singular end being to illicit intercourse. There is a *strict* policy around here that this is not a social networking site. There is a certain amount of social networking on all the sites but it strictly doesn't affect content, right? God said let there be internet. He saw that it was good and said Let there be business files, Let there be games and text messages and then he drowned the whole thing top to bottom in pronography and said, Now, you don't need any anyway.

• There should first be a policy that no pornographic image should be brought to Wikimedia from another site as it can be taken for granted that such material is considered by most to be delicate and personal.

• There should be a policy in line with the "...is not a social networking site." that says "...is not a repository for pornography.", that material of a pornographic nature is unessecary and needs an individually mitigating reason or purpose.

Valid concern about censorship is about freedom of information. Anything else is crapp. There are already policies about expression in text i.e. use of profanity. All best ~ R.T.G 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and hatred in Commons

moved from en.wiki:

Jimbo, I refer you to the image Ship_to_Gaza_by_Latuff.gif in Commons. It has no educational value, is out of project scope, just like hardcore porm images, but somehow, admins even deny allowing a discussion on the subject. this cannot be tolerated anymore. Almost all of Carlos_Latuff's images are of the same nature. They display anti-semitic, racist, anti-israel "cartoons", which are used soley to emotionally shock and stun it's viewers. These images should be removed from Commons as were the porn pictures, and Commons should disallow uploading such useless and redundant images, with no real value. Commons should be used to store such repulsive images only because thay are cc-by-sa. Yonidebest Ω Talk 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take questions about commons to commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Like i said, admins dont allow a discussion on the subject and one-sidedly closed discussions. If you are unable to help force Commons to get rid of these images, who can? Commons is simply encouraging hatred and anti-Semitism with non-educational and out of scope images, and this should be stopped. Yonidebest Ω Talk 13:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has a talkpage over there, too. LadyofShalott 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Here we go - i moved the discussion to commons. Jimbo? Yonidebest Ω Talk 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please remove these images. There's no way any of these hateful images could be used in Wikipedia articles (if only because they are not notable) so there's no reason to keep them here. WikiLaurent (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiLaurent, and Yonidebest, Jimbo Wales has no power to remove that [....] from Commons, he even has no power to request putting that [....] to the right category, which is Category:Antisemitic pictures. I was blocked on English wikipedia for so called BLP violation for this edit " latuff is an anti-Semite and the Holocaust denier. That cartoon you proudly added here only proves the point that latuff is an anti-Semite. He did not even bother to say "racist Israelis" he just said "racist Jews"." and for writing the word latuff in small letters.That blocking admin wrote to me:" Moreover, your habit of referring to Carlos Latuff in small type leads me to believe that you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Wikipedia. You are blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:BLP and also warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions in the event of continuing disruption." Ha-ha-ha, it is me who is here "mainly to fight an ideological battle", (Just look at my contributions), and what latuff is here for? That foolish admin, who blocked me thought that 24 hours block will force me to change my opinion about that garbage. On the other hand the user, who posted this message "Unfortunately, there are many points of comparison between the Nazis and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which is racist to the core" was never blocked, and everybody were happy with that. latuff garbage will stay on Commons, it will never be put to the right category, Commons is becoming just another antisemitic and Israeli hater site. Why? Well, look at the world map. Commons is no censored to upload hate propaganda, racist anti-Semitic garbage, but it is censored to call that garbage with its real name.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia is somewhat overprotective of living persons, and your ability to use this block as a badge of martyrdom just goes to show why it shouldn't have been issued. But fortunately, Wikipedia at least has not yet invented the notion of a "blood libel": the BLP policy applies only to specific individuals, not to corporations, political parties, nations, or races. Even so, blatant POV-pushing, i.e. the insertion of unsourced and unverifiable attacks into a purportedly factual article based only on personal hatred for the subject, is not approved of. Now given your particular interest in Latuff, I can't help but think that you might have read w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, which shows Latuff's winning entry in this "Holocaust denial cartoon contest". It portrays a presumably Palestinian man with a prisoner number and a red crescent patch, behind (presumably) the wall the Israelis were building at the time. Whatever else you think of it, the cartoon is not denying the Holocaust, but in fact calls upon its imagery as a warning. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It most definitely is within our scope, simply for the reason that it's in use on other projects. Beyond that, work by notable artist. I agree that it's distateful, but so is much of the stuff we have here. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a page called Commons:Village pump. If this is an issue to some, it should be discussed there and have this thread closed (to avoid disruptive parallel discussions). ZooFari 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually should not be discussed anywhere. As I said look at the map, and you will see there is absolutely no use in such discussions. Half of the world are Muslim countries, and other half are Westerns, who always feel they are guilty in something. One day those Westerns will wake up, look in their windows, and see that the fascism is back, but then it will be too late. You do not believe me? Here's only one example please watch the video. Would you like to see some more?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I tried to be as polite as possible under the circumstances, but few minutes ago I read the article by w:Charles Krauthammer. He said it all. He explained what that flotilla was about: "Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." Sorry for the long quote. I only provided it to prove my point that there is nothing to discuss about "Anti-Semitism and hatred on Commons". They are way too popular nowadays, and commons is not an exception.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I turned to Jimbo because I disagree with the Commons comunity re these files. I wish to removed said files in spite of their beliefs and against their will. If Jibmo is unable to remove the files, please refer me to someone who has such a power. I mean, this site must have an owner. Yonidebest Ω Talk 07:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Clamoring for dictatorship? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want them removed, open an DR. If the decision is to keep, that's final. If you can't live with that, go somewhere else. Kameraad Pjotr 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in here: I find it odd that the so-called clean up project was focused on only one kind of potentially damaging(?), offensive(?), disgusting(?) pictures, namely pornography. The stuff Mila refers to easily tops the deleted material in all those categories. Other stuff exists has never been a valid argument on commons. And, yes, I know, quite a few DRs had been kept before, however that does in no way mean that those decisions were final. I can only urge everyone to try and reevaluate their position on this. Why should commons be taken advantage of to disseminate hate propaganda? --Dschwen (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pjotr - I tried that already, and it was archived before anyone else could have a say. "Go somewhere else" is not a solution. Porn images were deleted - and as such should these images. This site is not flickr and should not accept all contributions. I ask again, if Jimbo can no longer remove such images, who has this authority now? Yonidebest Ω Talk 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Yoni. Jimbo deleted pornography, and was desysoped. If he deletes hate propaganda, he will be blocked . On a more serious note. Yoni, please trust my experience. Nobody will delete that [....] from Commons, nobody will put that [....] to the only category it belongs to. The only thing people as you and me could do is to try not to touch that [....] because the more it is touched the more it stinks.
Thank you for your message, Daniel. You are a great and brave Person!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask for your honest opinion. Take a look below and tell me what the issue is:

A cartoon by Carlos Latuff depicting the Gaza flotilla raid.

Israel is a bunch of Nazi forces.

If majority of the people say that boththe left is an issue, then the majority of people need to grow up. Wikimedia is aimed to educate and provide free content, and that's what the image on the left is doing. If Wikipedians start using the image on the right to protest, as already started, then that's the Wikipedian's problem, no? If it is an issue to people then Wikipedia should take further guidelines for user pages into consideration. We aren't going to knock over Commons because someone is using an image in a way you find offensive. The left image is well used in its articles. Pornography before was beyond explicit and people need to accept the fact. What image is going to turn an 8 year old's pupils into tiny grains of salt, a pornographic image or a cartoon? I understand that some contributions shouldn't be allowed here, and apparently pornography is one of them. A cartoon is less serious as long as it is used correctly. If you find the image being used in a way that's offensive, why not just remove it? Here we are trying to convince "the master" to perform more drama sh**, so I'm sure we are willing to remove it. It's a wiki. We didn't legitimately want porn before because "think of the children", but now we don't want hatred cartoons because adults cry about it. ZooFari 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly zoofari. well put. If you are offended, perhaps people should install an internetfilter that keeps them in their private little world.. TheDJ (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoni, let me please quote one more time the article from Washington Post: "Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." Please notice Charles Krauthammer writes about Flotilla passengers:" useful idiots and terror sympathizers". Now let's have a logical exercise.Most of the world supports those "useful idiots and terror sympathizers" which means...I'd better stop here. Now, Yoni, please rest assure that sooner or later latuff's hate will be deleted from the NET. Do you know when it happens? It will happen, when the West will loose its culture, its freedoms, its values to the plaque of radical Islam, and then latuff will be gone from the NET because the whole Internet will be gone. Sometimes I am thinking to myself, how come that the West cannot see what's going on. Were bombings in Madrid and London not enough? Was September 11 not enough? Are bombing of mosques, schools and markets in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, when Islamists are killing Muslims are not enough? And I do not even mention countless homicide bombings in Israel. Who cares about Jews anyway? Sometimes I wonder why the West cannot understand that if Arabs are to put down the arms there will be no war, if Israel is to put down the arms there will be no Israel. Or maybe it is what the West wants that there will be no more Israel? Don't they understand what is coming their way, if Israel, the only democracy in the region, is gone? Robert Kennedy did, when he wrote back in 1948; "If a Jewish state is formed it will be the only remaining stabilizing factor in the near and far East". Yoni until the West is more preoccupied with the buildings construction in Jerusalem than with nuclear bombs constructions in Iran, there is no use to try to delete the hate propaganda [....] from Commons. Please trust me on that.
@ZooFari and others, the hate by latuff is an open antisemitism. If it is kept on Commons, it should be put to the only category it belongs to Category:Antisemitic pictures, and maybe new category propaganda of hate. Until it is not there, it means that our non censored Commons is non censored in only some particular way, and that Commons is supporting antisemitism and hate by latuff--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your quotes argue about a real-world situation, and can't see how it's related or supports your argument regarding Commons. You mentioned "West cannot see what's going on", but you oppose using these images to educate? I don't understand. I don't see how not isolating images into specific categories makes Commons a supporter of antisemitism and hate by "latuff". Our goal is not to make impressions for people (e.g. Fox). I may not be comprehending your point above so summarize it to the main point (if it's related to Commons). ZooFari 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A cartoon by Carlos Latuff depicting the Gaza flotilla raid. Are you serious ZooFari? That is supposed to be the better alternative to Israel is a bunch of Nazi forces. And you urge people to grow up? And that even earns you a well put. What a sad state of affairs. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to suggest. My point was that "A cartoon by Carlos Latuff depicting the Gaza flotilla raid" is the better alternative. If people find that caption just as bad as the one to the right, then it's an issue. I've made a correction above using strikes, hope it's better to comprehend for you. And yes, I urge society to grow up. ZooFari 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a shitty alternative. The cartoon is certainly not depicting the Gaza flotilla raid, the cartoon is at best a comment on the Gaza flotilla raid. If you do not even understand this basic fact then I guess it is you who has some growing up to do. --Dschwen (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You've dropped the stone you wanted to drop on me. Anymore ways to make my point look further stupid I'm not interested in hearing no more. ZooFari 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, IMO hate cannot educate, but let's assume it could. Common readers will look at that [....], and the categories it placed in, and many readers will believe that Commons is endorsing that hate. On the other hand, if it is added to the right categories, and taken out of categories it does not belong to,maybe Commons would be able to educate some readers what that [....] is about. Besides how many of latuff Commons should have for educational purposes? Aren't you afraid that we will end up with more garbage by latuff than art by Goya, Rembrandt, Picasso, Bosh and all other great artists combined, we are really close to this sad record already. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That image appears to be in an entirely appropriate set of categories - the Latuff cat, the flotilla cat, the political cartoons cat, the swastika cat and the antisemitic cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on,Mattbuck, please look at the history. liftran and kuiper will not let the garbage to stay in the the antisemitic cat.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saying that when I looked it was in an appropriate set of cats. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the political cartoons cat if other anti semitic cartoons besides those of Latuff, are not there. Also, Doesn't seem like Jimbo want to deal with this issue. --Gilisa (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Mattbuck, when was the last time you checked the categories of the [....]? One just left to wonder what category out of two suggested by Charles Krauthammer the users, who upload that hate, and do not let to add it to the right category belong to themselves:)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's deletions of pornography targeted mostly images without educational value (i.e. amateur porn), though he went too far with about a third of them. This cartoon is an artwork by a notable cartoonist, i.e. one with an en.wikipedia article, and serves to illustrate the present controversy.

Commons images rarely have a chance to explain themselves, but I wish that people would understand that our archiving of a resource does not mean that we endorse it. An image like this might be used in criticizing Israel, but it might also be used to illustrate how overwrought anti-Israeli groups can become when the Israelis use force to defend their (???) borders. After all the Israeli-swastika flag was probably a bridge too far, for the cartoonist that is. Wnt (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, your POV about Israel is clear I think. However, this "artwork" is anti semitic and we are not dealing its "artistic" value anyway. --Gilisa (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And your point is that we shouldn't host it simply because it's antisemitic? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't host it because it's antisemitic encouragers hatred and because it has no real artistic value (the author had only recently drawn it, how can it have value already?) and because it was not uploaded for educational purposes (uploaded by antisemitic friend of antisemitic author) and because it has no educational value for wikipedia purposes and because commons is not flickr and doesnt need to host all of the authors images and because it offends commons contributers. all these reason together are why this images should be removed from commons. Yonidebest Ω Talk 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And we shouldn't host images of mohammed because.... do i really need to continue ? Seriously i'm as offended by this attempt to censor this material as I am offended by Islam demanding we remove all images of Mohammed, as I am at Jimbo for removing artworks in his porn purge. TheDJ (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We (commons admins) are not here to remove things that people find offensive (as Malcolm appears to be advocating below). Our remit at commons is to provide a library of free to use educational material, and it is noted explicitly in our scope that an image in use on another Wikimedia project is automatically educational. I'm sorry you find it offensive, but there are a lot of things that people find offensive, and if we start removing things simply because they are offensive then we go down a path which leads to removing photos of buttons and washing machines because the amish would find them offensive. You say how can something have value immediately - how can it not? It's an opinion. You have your own opinion - does your opinion not have value simply because it's on something which happened recently? As for Latuff being biased - everyone is biased, it's just they all think their bias is neutral. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has ever heard of Latuff, aside from the readers of publications that are obviously antisemitic. There is no point in getting worked over his cartoons. They are insignificant, and the POV of Latuff advocates is obvious. (Anyone who thinks that Commons administrators are capable of doing the right thing concerning this issue are making the mistake of thinking that is what they are here for.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the POV of both sides might be pretty obvious, but my POV (despite an insinuation above) is first and foremost to keep the books in the library and out of the bonfire. As an American it is my patriotic duty to defend the availability of things like Category:Burning flags of the United States. I would suggest that if anti-Israeli cartoons bother people so badly, they might better put that energy into tracking down pro-Israeli cartoonists and asking them if there are images they would like to release for upload to Commons. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there something you meant to say, but forgot to include in your edit? This discussion, if I remember correctly, is about Latuff cartoons. There was no issue with book burning, as far as I can see, and no one here has the power to stop the antisemitic news media that publishes his cartoons from continuing to do that.

I don't think there is much point to arguing about Latuff's cartoons because the are insignificant, and no on knows who he is but the readers of a few marginal publications. When I once searched l'Unità, Italy's oldest Communist newspaper, there were no hits even there. Even they have no interest in Latuff's stuff. What makes his cartoons so silly, in my view, is that his attacks on Israel are nothing better than examples of Godwin's law. The current example is just one more such cheap shot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any serious argument against it being put into Category:Antisemitic pictures?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon is not anti-semitic. It criticizes the actions of the state of Israel against shipments of humanitarian aid. The incomparable User:Mbz1 usually equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon is clearly anti-semitic. It uses imagery depicting Jews as animals, and non-Jews as human. It uses the imagery of the Jew as octopus, which is directly from Nazi propaganda. I've posted a brief history on the talk page of the image.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism what is antisemetism and now I guess we would be told few stories about Jewish lobbies.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They never got that definition beyond the draft stage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo, the "truthfulness" of kuiper could be seen from his claim I was the only one, who believes that garbage is anti-Semitic hate propaganda. In reality at least 4 other editors at that very thread believe the same. It was not even me, who started the thread. Now here's Avi's explanation given to other user concerning its working definition for antisemitism.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you are upset, but please don't attack the "truthfulness" of other contributors. It isn't helpful at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not upset, I am rather disgust.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon is antisemitic, and I have, in previous discussions, explained at length why many of Latuff's cartoon deserve to be in that category. But, my current thinking is that it would be better not to put them in that category. Doing that only makes it easy for antisemites to find the kind of stuff they are looking for. In fact I think it might be best not to have a Commons antisemitism category at all. It is as bad as having Commons images of child pornography actually labeled "child pornography" for the convenience of those warped personalities who are looking for it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Malcolm , you might be right, and at one point I thought as you did, but on the other hand, if that [....] is not added to the right category, it means that Commons does not believe it is an anti-Semitic, and I believe it is a bad practice. About your statement that placing it to the right category "makes it easy for antisemites to find the kind of stuff they are looking for" please rest assure they (antisemites) will find it no matter what. After all the Internet is full with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm, your point has some merit, but I don't find this line of thought compelling. Suppose I am a lecturer seeking to educate people on contemporary and historical antisemitism. Such images, unlike images of actual child pornography, are not illegal, and are likely to be used in educational contexts. We often hear about people who allegedly "equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism" and I suppose one could find someone, somewhere, who really does that. It is important to note, as a factual matter, that there is a long history of antisemitic imagery, some of it still in use today, and that this is an entirely separate matter from the question of criticism of Israel. I think it worthwhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you believe that its working definition for antisemitism is enough to claim that that cartoon is anti-Semitic, and if no, why not?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to rely on that document. At the same time, I do mostly agree with the definition presented there, though as I suppose any thoughtful person could, I could argue with some of the particular formulations. I don't see why that particular definition, although it is a reasonably good one, has any privileged position.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughtful people chose not to adopt that definition. Criticism often uses comparisons with nazi's. The radical left labels many opponents as "fascists", and Latuff sprinkles his swasticas on Americans, Brazilians, and Swedes. Why should Israel be exempt? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I explained what I think, but do not expect that others will necessarily agree, and I understand that others have their reasons to approach the problem differently. Am I correct in understanding that you consider the cartoon antisemitic and want to put it in that category? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I think that much - though not all - of Latuff's work here in commons could and should be so classified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, one of his cartoon is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. BTW Commons has not just one, but two absolutely the same of those cartoons. Do we really need to have the two of them for "educational purposes"? Okay, now I am very interested in your opinion. You said you consider some of latuff cartoons anti-Semitic. Does it mean that the creator of those cartoons could be called an antisemite and the Holocaust denier, or in your opinion it is BLP violation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying we have two identical versions of the same thing? That seems unnecessary, quite apart from the content, but if they differ in some way, I don't see why we shouldn't have two versions. I do not think that on the basis of Latuff using antisemitic imagery in some of his cartoons, it is logical to conclude that he is, himself, antisemitic. He could be using that imagery simply for the shock value, for example. I also think it's not necessary or desirable for us to be calling people much of anything, to be clear. As to whether or not he's a holocaust denier, I think that's a pretty outrageous accusation that has no basis in fact at all. Have I overlooked something?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See, here where our opinions differ. While we apparently agree that at least some of it cartoons are anti-Semitic, we do not agree that this means that their creator is an antisemite. In your opinion the drawing of antisemetic cartoons is not necessarily means the creator hates Jews, he just hurts them ("the shok" hurts peole), and I assure you the cartoons do hurt, and hurt a lot, not only Israelis (I am not Israeli), but all Jews. It does not matter he using swastikas for American and Brazilian, and who knows what else flags. The nazis did not murder 6 millions innocent Americans and Swedes. Yet, I kind of understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree with you on that. About the Holocaust denial. As I mentioned before one of his cartoon, the one that won second place at w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and yes, Commons has two absolutely the same images of that [....]. The article I linked to is added to category Holocaust denial in English wikipedia. So in your opinion it should be removed from that category because "that's a pretty outrageous accusation" to call that competition for what it really was, and you do not believe Simon Wiesenthal Center has the authority to decide what is the Holocaust denial? Or maybe you do, but exactly as with antisemetism issue, you believe that even, if the cartoon itself, belongs to the category Holocaust denial, it does not necessarily means that it creator denies the Holocaust? I guess at that point my questions are rather rhetorical, no need to lose more of your time responding them. I have not started that thread, and I knew from the very beginning it will lead to nothing. IMO it might be better to archive this discussion now.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that any criticizing of Israel and/or Zionism are anti-Semitic, but comparing Israel to nazis is. Here's what King said: During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism."--Mbz1 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any particular relevance of this to the narrow issue at hand, and I would prefer to decline at this time to have a general philosophical discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. the views of Brian Klug, as summarized here might be of interest to people. I found it to be very enlightening. TheDJ (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What I think some people have missed in the above discussion is that while the cartoon is anti-Semitic and should be categorized accordingly, that is not an argument for deleting it — but it is an argument for retaining it. Illustrating encyclopedic articles about anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic figures from past and present is part of Wikimedia Commons' fundamental mission. If the Simon Weisenthal Center cited this cartoon's creator by name, that clinches the case that this cartoon is notable and should be kept in our collection. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, and pornographic images illustrate articles on pornography. We've heard the cycle or arguments over and over. How is this any different? Commons has no obligation to host every freely licensed antisemitic propaganda cartoon. How many do you need to illustrate articles? --Dschwen (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Illustration" is not limited to the thumbnails we can easily fit to the right of the present text when shown at 300 pixels width. For example, there is a common tag you'll see on Wikipedia, that says "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:" That's not an empty promise: you're supposed to be able to page over to Commons to see more illustrations. While we shouldn't host absolutely every anti-Semitic cartoon, we should certainly host those notable enough that the person who drew them has an article on Wikipedia that may contain such a tag. And the reason why these arguments keep going on is because we're talking about one of the main pillars of the entire project: reporting the facts without censorship and without imposing our personal point of view. Wnt (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Wnt comments, I would note that Commons doesn't exist solely to host images for other WMF projects. Therefore whether an image is likely to be used in an article doesn't on its own determine whether we should keep it. Sure, Commons doesn't have an obligation to host any images, but where there are freely licensed images created by a notable artist in my view we should host all of them. To not do so would be detrimental to our aim of making available freely-licensed educational media content. Adambro (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that Anti-Censorship speech sounds very noble indeed. Unfortunately it is pretty empty. The recent cleanup set a precedent. Whether we like it or not. It is by the same logic that we are not hosting every penis image that is available under a free license. Latuff is not notable. I has been said here before. Hosting all his trash is giving him undue weight. Anyhow, I believe I've done my civic duty here, and I'm not letting this make me get all worked up. It is a small but annoying aspect of commons, and a sad one too. Nothing much we can do about it now. Maybe it just needs a fabricated media-outcry and some "investigative journalists" calling major donors asking if agree to financing the distribution of crude antisemitic propaganda... ho hum... --Dschwen (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' actions did not "set" a precedent, but (somewhat loosely) followed policy dating from the origin of Wikimedia Commons. For example, if you read the version of the policy from the end of December 2008,[3] it contains very much the same scope restrictions that he enforced (a minority of controversial and subsequently undeleted cases aside). These restrictions are not designed to censor coverage of sexual topics, but only to prevent Wikimedia resources from being sapped by non-educational uses. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree his actions set a precedent. Any more actions like his will be dealt with swiftly and decisive by desysopping and/or blocking the user in question. No exceptions. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the draft Commons:sexual content, I think people are inclined to accept some exceptions, for speedy deletion of certain stuff nobody has thought of a real use for. Please feel free to comment there if you can make a good argument against all speedy deletions. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to comment too much on the image itself: I can understand why it's offensive, but do remember that America, at the moment, is surprisingly prone to throwing around Nazi references in political discourse, in both political parties. There's a shockingly common picture of Obama with a Hitler moustache used by Republicans, for instance. However, even if we take this image in its most negative interpretation, documenting anti-Semitism, racism, and the like can be worthwhile, as understanding the horrors of it is a big step to helping to end prejudice. To use another example: Heart of Darkness is an undoubtably racist book. But it's a much more open racism, not seeking to conceal itself, and is documenting the horrors of the Belgian Congo. As such, it's actually a useful teaching tool: Reading it lets you understand how deep racism can go, to the extend of literally dehumanizing, and, in one passage, the narrator is afraid that blacks might actually be human, as that would make him too like them. Such ugly, ugly racism is shocking, and that shock can lead to reevaluating one's views.

In short, I think speedy deletion wouldn't be appropriate. We need to document human history, and part of that is both anti-Semitism, and the cheapening of Nazi references. Does this serve an encyclopedic purpose? That should be decided in discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania slides

• File:Annoying User, Good Content.JPG

Hi, I saw this photo, and am curious -- is your Wikimania slide deck available in its entirety? I looked, but wasn't able to find them. -Pete F (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, just a query in relation to the text on this image. Are these your words? If so, have you released them under a free licence? @Vlsergey: has uploaded the photo under {{CC-0}} which is fine, but the photo is a clear derivative work of your words. There is enough "originality" in the actual words to be copyrightable, so if you are the author of the words, can you please tell us what licence we need to apply to this image. If you are fine with CC-0, then the licencing won't need to be changed. Thanks, russavia (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, unfortunately, you haven't responded in over a month with an answer to the question above. As such, I have had to raise the issue at DR which you can view at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Annoying User, Good Content.JPG. If you would finally get around to answering the question within the 7 day timeframe, it would be great so that we can fix the issue. Without a response from you, the image will simply need to be deleted due to having unclear copyright status. russavia (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: After confirming permission (Yes. I hereby license the above-referenced talk (Wikimania 2014) under CC-BY-SA-3.0.) result of that discussion ended as  Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

email

Hello Jimbo, I emailed you a week ago to ask a question; I know you're busy and all over the place (in the best possible way) but I haven't had a reply even indicating when you would be able to consider my question. I did come here to email a reminder but it seems you do not have email enabled here.

In 2014 you said this

one of the things that I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years.

Is the logical extension or corollary of this that there should be no forgiveness, ever, for such a person who is demonstrably rehabilitated? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Jimbo hasn't made a single edit here since 2014. On his enwiki talk page he occasionally responds. And when I say occasionally, I do mean occasionally.

What I read in Jimbo's words is that we shouldn't be shaming people and scream at them in the first place, so the socking never happens. We are doing a kinda shitty job at that at times. I don't think Jimbo's words are saying anything at all about how to deal with socks. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I know that, Alexis, but Jimbo AFAIK isn't aware of this post yet. He will be made so. I would have preferred a private discussion with Jimbo but I'm having to do this here on the basis that "if Mahomet will not go to the mountain...". Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about the photo of Gulchekhra Bobokulova with the cut off head of a murdered child

• File:Гюльчехра Бобокулова 29.02.2016.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hello, Jimbo. What do you think about existance of the photo in the corresponding articles? It was deleted from article on the Russian Wikipedia and Humanitarian& deleted it from article on the English Wikipedia. Can this photo be cause of a winning sue from parents of the killed girl to WMF? Раммон (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Раммон: Refer to Jimbo Wales. Due to past controversial incidents relating to Jimmy's Wikimedia Commons actions, they are unlikely to make any reply to questions here. Their user talk page at en:User:Jimbo Wales is available, so long as you are not on their personal ignore/enemies list.

However considering Commons:Deletion requests/File:Гюльчехра Бобокулова 29.02.2016.jpg exists, this may be a moot point. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am banned in the English Wikipedia, so I cannot write on Jimbo's user talk page there. That is why I have to write here. Раммон (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)