Talk:Wikimedia Foundation addresses controversial content conflict

Original Reporting notes
All 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):

Original documents consulted are linked under sources.

-  Amgine | t 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Interview transcript
Would 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:

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?
I have reviewed the article and it is fine to go except for one important question. 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.
 * The article contains the phrase "images which were targeted as possible child-porn,".  Why the word "child"?

My suggestions: I don't mind which.
 * 1) a selection of explicit photographs and engravings
 * 2) images which he considered to have only pornographic uses
 * 3) possibly pornographic images

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)