QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 18th February 2011, 4:18am)
Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?
Hint. 501(â€câ€)(3) First, I have basically given up on Commons. The fact that Commons was not even able to adopt the sexual content policy, to whose draft I contributed for half a year, told me that working at the community level in Commons is a waste of time. Change will either come from the top, or not at all. Until such time, it is what it is, and there is nothing you or I can do about it.
There is no excuse for
crap like this, but some people
are aware of the problem, even over there, and
do want to do something about it. It can only come from the top, like the BLP policy, because the community is too immature and porn-obsessed, or porn-tolerant, to get there by itself.
Secondly, just because Commons is full of stuff like this doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to be full of it, too.
Personally, I am fine with Commons hosting adult material,
provided that all these Commons files have an age-related opt-in, as they do in Flickr, and remain invisible to everyone else. That's what I am working towards.
Seriously, what do you think would have to happen in Commons for the Foundation to lose its charitable status? Do you think the present magnitude of the problem is enough?
If so, draft a letter to the relevant IRS department that grants 501©(3) status. You'll find lots of people here who will sign up.
GenderGaffe, GenderGate : Kinder, Gendler Wikipediots, For Discussion of the Less Divine Comedies of WikiPutia
