On 7/22/10 4:17 PM, David Gerard wrote: > And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have > somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten > years. > So far it's worked because we've been lucky. Here's an example of a bad situation just waiting to happen: Every once in while someone nominates an obviously provocative image to be featured on Commons. So far they have all failed on purely technical grounds (unless you count the couple of "softcore" nude images that have passed). Commons' featured picture criteria includes nothing about appropriateness for the Main Page. Indeed, the Featured Picture people maintain that they have no control over what gets put on the Main Page and it isn't their problem. The Picture of the Day people (who actually choose what goes on the Main Page) also disavow any responsibility as they say they have no control over what images get Featured Status and all Featured pictures are fair game for the Main Page. Thus if someone were to nominate a hardcore pornographic image that was technically superb for featured status on Commons, it would probably pass. The POTD people would then say it is fair game and put it on the Main Page of Commons. If you think this isn't possible, you haven't hung out on Commons long enough. At least on en.wiki we have a psuedo-gatekeeper ( Raul654). > Rules saying "don't be stupid" don't work and encourage less > cluefulness, not more cluefulness. > I'm not saying "don't be stupid". I'm suggesting some specific (but flexible) guidelines we can point to for those editors who have demonstrated a lack of cluefulness.
Ryan Kaldari _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
