Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Controversial content software status

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 11:23 PM

Post #26 of 69 (2633 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
>>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
>>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
>>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
>>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
>>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
>>> board acts as a corporate body.

> Phoebe

I do understand the reticience to speak as a person when one is a part of
a body that represents a consensus reached by highly diplomatic speach.
The only downside (I will not say, a flaw.) with this is that it does not deter
hyperbole, but encourages it, in descriptions of what the consensus driven
body is doing. There has to be some modus operandi that could alleviate
that. One would be that when there is a genuine consensus, people in the
consensus driven body speak with one voice and take collective responsibility
(some would say blame) for that, even if they have minor differnces. But if
the concensus is only achieved through very elusive means, the body could
decide (as a consensus) that people be allowed to express their own private
views to the public with a slight latitude. Even parliamentarism acknowledges
such terms as "free votes" that allow decisionmakers to let their constitutients
have a genuine sense where their representatives hearts truly lie.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


putevod at mccme

Mar 6, 2012, 8:20 AM

Post #27 of 69 (2637 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

> Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly
> because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called
> (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a
> poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like
> dignifying any of that with engagement.
>

I am not sure where and in what context these accusations were made (I can
not recollect seeing any of them), but in any case, be it on wiki or on a
mailing list, each of them is uncivil, constitutes a personal attack, and
must be stopped by a warning, a block or by putting the offender on
moderation. This level of discussion is absolutely unacceptable and can not
be tolerated in our community.

BTW I think that being an open-minded and able to change opinions is a
very appropriate quality for a Trustee.

Cheers
Yaroslav

PS I have whatsoever no relation to the elections as I am not a member of
any Chapter.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


kat at mindspillage

Mar 6, 2012, 6:30 PM

Post #28 of 69 (2623 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
>>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
>>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
>>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
>>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
>>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
>>> board acts as a corporate body.
>>
>>
>> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns,
>> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from
>> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say
>> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your
>> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the
>> representing.
>
> That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my
> mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it.
> I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few
> months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at
> the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that.
>
>> What stopped you from voicing your qualms?
>
> Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly
> because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called
> (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a
> poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like
> dignifying any of that with engagement.
>
> And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails
> I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be
> moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what
> we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything!
>
> So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying
> not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including "can't
> we please find something more important to argue about?!"). Oh well.
>
> Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
> search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
> search :)

Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.

I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).

We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
agreement on.

Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
the best decision?

I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
progress.

So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
principles of free access to information that we value.

But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
out of the current approach.

So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
part, nor on Phoebe's.

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat [at] wikimedia, kat [at] mindspillage
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 8:05 AM

Post #29 of 69 (2628 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kat Walsh <kat [at] mindspillage> wrote:
...

> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.
>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).
>
> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.
>
> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?
>
> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.

Yes, this. All of this. Thanks, Kat; you are always more eloquent than I am :)

As a board we've talked a lot about the most responsible way to
comment as a community member vs as part of this consensus-driven,
corporate body we call the board. We've talked about it because it's a
real concern for many of us -- the dilemma hits you pretty much from
day one, especially in our culture of community members talking about
everything. Ideally, of course, you do agree with board decisions and
how they're being carried out, but even in that case it's hard -- is
someone speaking as themselves or for the board if they express
support?

And truth be told you never get taken "as an individual" once you join
-- your opinions are always taken as "those of a board member",
whether you want them to be or not, and are tossed around politically
in consequence; and you are responsible for what the WMF does whether
you agree particularly with any individual action (or even know about
them). If you say something critical, are those opinions going to get
held against the WMF, or make someone's work more difficult, or make
the work of the board more difficult, or somehow shut down community
discussion? Is it safe to express an opinion if you're really not sure
what the right thing to do is, or will exploring a misguided approach
be held against you forever? All of those are questions that we
struggle with in every conversation (but especially in really
contentious discussions), which goes some way towards answering
David's original question.


> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.

Agreed.

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


werespielchequers at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 8:40 AM

Post #30 of 69 (2632 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:30:27 -0500
> From: Kat Walsh <kat [at] mindspillage>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
> Message-ID:
> <CAHqe4Lrnvy9QjWkUwcKG+eL8hZwA5bcoRhR5Lct+A=6115u+nw [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>
>
> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.
>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).
>
> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.
>
> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?
>
> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.
>
> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.
>
> So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
> least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
> part, nor on Phoebe's.
>
> -Kat
>
>
Hi Kat, that's very refreshing to hear, though perhaps if it had come
sooner there would have been less bad blood and the issue would be less
significant in the current chapter elections.

I was in the minority that thought it would be good to offer some sort of
image filter to our readers, I even designed one that would avoid many of
the problems of the Foundation proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming/personal_private_filters

I'm also quite supportive both of the principle of Least Astonishment
(POLA) and also of fixing our search routines so that sexual images that
also involve cucumbers etc don't automatically jump to the top of searches
for cucumbers because of the popularity of sexual images. But POLA itself
is something that we need to carefully define. I'm aware of one recent
incident where an editor got qite a bit of hassle because an image that he
used to have on his webpage was subsequently replaced by an image that I
would describe as Not Safe For Home, let alone Not Safe For Work. I'd
consider that a POLA breach, but presumably the person who replaced a
cropped image of someone's upper body with an uncropped image would just
have thought they were improving an image.

But even though I've been supportive of much of the controversial content
resolution, I'm not sure that the way the WMF has handled this has been
ideal. My preference would be that when the WMF realises that a proposal
has serious problems in the community, that proposal should be wholly or
partially suspended or withdrawn so that the contentious aspects can be
resolved. Better still the WMF should aim to work with the grain of the
community and not adopt resolutions and major changes of direction without
first getting community consensus for them.

I'm also intrigued by your comment "we have things that will have much more
impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start". Taking the fundraising
proposal as an example, do you really think that the WMF idea of
centralising fundraising and not doing it through chapters has not had a
bad start? Or that the idea of running an inherently decentralised global
movement in a tightly controlled centralised manner was ever going to be
uncontentious, consensual or for that matter practical?

I'd also suggest that the board clarify when it considers that collective
responsibility applies to its members and where it doesn't. There are some
things such as dealings with regulators where collective responsibility is
necessary for a board such as the WMF. There are other things such as the
development of internal policy, where collective responsibility on the
board is risky and unhealthy for the organisation. Unhealthy because on a
divisive issue you want the minority to feel that they lost in the board
decision, not that the board as a whole is opposed to their ideas.

WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


julianadacostajose at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 9:02 AM

Post #31 of 69 (2635 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
"spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

Juliana


2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>

> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:
>
> > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that
> the
> > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great
> > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a
> > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing
> to
> > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> Wikipedia
> > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people
> > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time
> > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a
> > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument.
>
>
>
> The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in
> the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than
> other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and
> Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give
> them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
> approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
> might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
>
> By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn
> site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
> active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki
> of his own, where he says about himself,
>
> *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
> that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am
> all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
> looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy
> seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
> porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from
> capitalist fuckers."*
>
> There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
> Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex
> life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
> mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort
> for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am
> not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York
> Times readership would approve?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
>
> Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a
> nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce
> the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like
> "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite
> effect:
>
> - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content
> pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
> - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> followed by Category:Vulva<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
> and Category:Female
> genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
> .
> - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
> times a day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> >,
> compared to roughly 1 view a
> day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG>
> or less than one view a
> day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> for
> actual images of toothbrushes.
> - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a
> toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of
> Category:Toothbrushes<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
> the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> primarily
> an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
> included in Category:Shaved
> genitalia (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of
> Commons,
> and it is also part of Category:Female
> masturbation<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
> the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
> - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing figures
> will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing cucumbers,
> but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have
> browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber
> category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media, where
> the
> presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.
>
> More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after
> maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
> girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
> the main page. --*JN
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think that
> maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people are
> actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more often
> than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush"
> might just get people what they're looking for more often. The "principle
> of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if our
> horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it would
> be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
> Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
> (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4 March
> 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily page
> views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
> toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at
> Category:Shaved
> genitalia (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>
> and Category:Female
> masturbation<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
> every
> month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless of
> how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at images of
> other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of a
> tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model
> whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax exemption
> and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy to
> see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service?
> Probably neither. --*JN
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 9:27 AM

Post #32 of 69 (2634 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>:
> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

Hey Juliana,

As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
"controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.

best,
-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


julianadacostajose at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 9:52 AM

Post #33 of 69 (2629 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Hi Phoebe,

so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?

Best

Juliana


2012/3/7 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>

> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>:
> > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
> in
> > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
> bodies
> > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
>
> Hey Juliana,
>
> As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
> "controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
> board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
> frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.
>
> best,
> -- phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 10:13 AM

Post #34 of 69 (2640 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>:

> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?


Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of
other people feeling they have a right to know things in general.
Remember that (a) the right to know things in general does not come
for free - it's a hard-won privilege - and that (b) when someone wants
to suppress others' knowledge of things like inconvenient history[1],
porn has historically been a handy stalking horse.[2]

But of course, anyone who says this is obviously just a troll and troublemaker.


- d.

[1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
[2] e.g. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90367/music-industry-uses-net-neutrality-to-equate-p2p-with-child-porn/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


michaeldavid86 at comcast

Mar 7, 2012, 10:29 AM

Post #35 of 69 (2621 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

on 3/7/12 12:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José at
julianadacostajose [at] googlemail wrote:

> Hi Phoebe,
>
> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
>
> Best
>
> Juliana

>> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>:
>>> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
>> in
>>> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
>>> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
>> bodies
>>> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
>>> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
>>> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

2012/3/7 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>
>>
>> Hey Juliana,
>>
>> As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
>> "controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
>> board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
>> frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.
>>
>> best,
>> -- phoebe
>>
Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which
every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That
is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you
may not know about Wikipedia")

Should this read, "...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial
content that may upset some people."

Are you concerned about the Project's image or its content?

All knowledge - or none.

Marc Riddell

I will be intelligent enough to know that little can be known; inquisitive
enough never to stop learning, and perceptive enough to understand that all
things and all events contain infinite possibilities. - MR


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


delirium at hackish

Mar 7, 2012, 1:00 PM

Post #36 of 69 (2621 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 3/7/12 6:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José wrote:
> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
>
I don't think anyone's proposing that the information should be removed
from articles; just that there should be some tools available in
people's account settings.

I personally would be happy to turn off images in medicine-related
articles by default for my own browsing, because they aren't greatly
informative most of the time, and just pointless gore--- if, for
example, I'm reading about skin diseases, "another generic open sore
photo" doesn't add a lot of content to my reading. Of course, I would
like photos available for inspection when I do need them.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 2:41 PM

Post #37 of 69 (2646 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Juliana,

You simply don't understand where I am coming from.

I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
material.

And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.

Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
mainspace:

http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html

So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.

The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
efforts:

http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
this article:

http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283

The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.

Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
is a problem.

WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
from moving towards the mainstream of society.

Andreas



2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>

> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
>
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> > tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:
> >
> > > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that
> > the
> > > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a
> great
> > > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from.
> Take a
> > > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing
> > to
> > > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> > Wikipedia
> > > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people
> > > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short
> time
> > > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we
> are a
> > > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an
> argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> > becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in
> > the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> > masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often
> than
> > other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> > appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and
> > Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give
> > them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
> > approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
> > might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> > interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
> >
> > By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn
> > site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
> > active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn
> wiki
> > of his own, where he says about himself,
> >
> > *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
> > that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i
> am
> > all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
> > looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy
> > seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
> > porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away
> from
> > capitalist fuckers."*
> >
> > There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
> > Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary
> sex
> > life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
> > mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort
> > for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I
> am
> > not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New
> York
> > Times readership would approve?
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
> >
> > Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a
> > nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to
> reduce
> > the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like
> > "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite
> > effect:
> >
> > - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons
> content
> > pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
> > - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> > (female)<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> > followed by Category:Vulva<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
> > and Category:Female
> > genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
> > .
> > - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
> > times a day<
> >
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> > >,
> > compared to roughly 1 view a
> > day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG
> >
> > or less than one view a
> > day<
> > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> > for
> > actual images of toothbrushes.
> > - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a
> > toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory
> of
> > Category:Toothbrushes<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
> > the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> > primarily
> > an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
> > included in Category:Shaved
> > genitalia (female)<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> > which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of
> > Commons,
> > and it is also part of Category:Female
> > masturbation<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
> > the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
> > - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing figures
> > will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing
> cucumbers,
> > but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have
> > browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber
> > category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media, where
> > the
> > presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.
> >
> > More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after
> > maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
> > girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
> > the main page. --*JN
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think
> that
> > maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people
> are
> > actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more often
> > than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush"
> > might just get people what they're looking for more often. The "principle
> > of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if our
> > horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it
> would
> > be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
> > Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
> > (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4 March
> > 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily page
> > views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
> > toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at
> > Category:Shaved
> > genitalia (female)<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>
> > and Category:Female
> > masturbation<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
> > every
> > month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless
> of
> > how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at images
> of
> > other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of a
> > tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model
> > whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax
> exemption
> > and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy
> to
> > see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service?
> > Probably neither. --*JN
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 3:03 PM

Post #38 of 69 (2621 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
> from moving towards the mainstream of society.


I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
Wikipedia is.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 3:08 PM

Post #39 of 69 (2621 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
>> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
>> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
>> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
>> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
>> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
>> from moving towards the mainstream of society.
>
>
> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
> Wikipedia is.
>

The answer being; Not much at all.

Tom

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 3:15 PM

Post #40 of 69 (2623 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
>> Wikipedia is.

> The answer being; Not much at all.


We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
insufficient fame.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 3:29 PM

Post #41 of 69 (2635 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas [at] googlemail> wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
>>> Wikipedia is.
>
>> The answer being; Not much at all.
>
>
> We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
> assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
> sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
> asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
> insufficient fame.

We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is
tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are
majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream.

We are progressive, but that is another matter.

All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader.

Which has been my consistent criticism of this debacle.

Tom

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


tobias.oelgarte at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 3:46 PM

Post #42 of 69 (2622 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Juliana,
>
> You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
>
> I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
> I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
> material.
Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw
never an example from your side considering other topics. What i see is
the constant lobbying for a "safepedia", abusing children and crying
mothers as the main argument, while praising flickr, youtube and co. as
the ideal that we all should follow. Im absolutely not convinced that
this is the right way for knowledge. Not a single website that has this
kind of "service" is dedicated to spread education or knowledge. It's
quite the opposite.
> And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
I hope that they have the balls to follow the good examples. What are
good examples?
* Equal treatment of content and readers (including children), as most
libraries in the world do.
* The internet. A place for the free mind and everyone that wants to
share knowledge and to spread the word.
* Diversity in viewpoints, but acting with respect and tolerance.

> Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> mainspace:
>
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
>
> So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
> a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
>
> The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> efforts:
>
> http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
> The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
> English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
> thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
> for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> this article:
>
> http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no
evidence however. To me it looks like a witch hunt and i would create
and give you a barnstar for that. The reason this barnstar (hot n sexy)
exists is also very simple. It exists because people like you only rage
against sexual topics and that again, again, again, zZzZz, again and
again. It is boring and a nuisance for the active community that wants
to curate Commons.
> The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
>
> Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
> in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
> decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
> to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
> represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
> opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
> is a problem.
>
> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
> from moving towards the mainstream of society.
>
> Andreas
And the raging, biting and attacking continues, while constructing
arguments from single examples. Great job as usual. Sorry, but your
efforts piss me off and i see nothing good coming out of it. In a recent
discussion i thought that you would be able to have a little bit of
insight, but i was terribly wrong and I'm ashamed of you and your words.

nya~ (if lobbying is not enough, statute examples...)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 4:53 PM

Post #43 of 69 (2621 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:

> Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
> sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never
> an example from your side considering other topics.
>


You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these
are the discussions where you choose to hang out.



> He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence
>> however.
>
>

The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld
the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M



> And the raging, biting and attacking continues, while constructing
>> arguments from single examples. Great job as usual. Sorry, but your efforts
>> piss me off and i see nothing good coming out of it. In a recent discussion
>> i thought that you would be able to have a little bit of insight, but i was
>> terribly wrong and I'm ashamed of you and your words.
>
>

You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea,
which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one
developer commenting on your proposal at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons

It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia
problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now.

http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating

Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is
not getting the attention it deserves.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 4:56 PM

Post #44 of 69 (2611 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kat Walsh <kat [at] mindspillage> wrote:

> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.

"definetely more interesting things to talk about"? Like how to arrange the
deckchairs maybe?

>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).

It is extremely hard not to get sarcastic here. So I will just say nothing.

> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.

If you really think so. I am genuinely dissapointed. I will not elaborate
on that in a public forum.

> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?

With the composition of tne board very out of touch of with
the community, it is very hard not to to dismiss this as a pure
irrelevance.

> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.

This bit I understand wholly. But there is that awkward bit that you are
not just a part of it, but a *trustee*. You are not elected there to be a
part of a job-mill. You are out there to fight the good fight for the rest
of us.The one thing that you never should have held compromisable
is not any single issue or multipe issues you would not compromise
over but that you there not representing your values, but your
understanding of ours, the community. Those are the standards
you should judge yourself by, as should others.

>
> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.

I am sorry but I think I can't let you off quite this easily. In what
universe was it a "viable starting position"? It, and all ideas
remotely like it never got any traction before. Maybe if you
think "We got nowhere before on this, we can only do better."

As to being surprised by searches. Talk to google image search.
Do you think they have mastered the art?

> So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
> least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
> part, nor on Phoebe's.

I have to say I agree. Perfectly consistent.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


tobias.oelgarte at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 5:20 PM

Post #45 of 69 (2617 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Am 08.03.2012 01:53, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:
>
>> Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>> Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
>> sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never
>> an example from your side considering other topics.
>>
>
> You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these
> are the discussions where you choose to hang out.
This is very unconvincing, because it's very easy to keep track on steps
of other users. ;-)
>
>
>> He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence
>>> however.
>>
> The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld
> the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M
And of course there is not a single clue why it happend or what he did
wrong. That's like putting someone into the jail while holding a trial
excluded from the public, while the prosecutor and judge are the same
person(s). Reminds me on the middle age.
>
> You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea,
> which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one
> developer commenting on your proposal at
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons
>
> It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia
> problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now.
I don't see it as solving a problem. I see it as way to improve Commons
while not making the anti porn lobby raining down useless and stupid
deletion requests on Commons or proposing and pushing even more idiocy
in resolutions, like that sexuality related images have to be hidden in
special categories and are forbidden to show up in more general
categories, even if they contain the subject.

The most useful part of a comment I found in the search discussion on
Commons was:

Category:Photographs of non-kosher mammals standing on the hind legs
with the visible genitalia made in Germany with a digital camera during
Rammadon at night
> http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating
>
> Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is
> not getting the attention it deserves.
>
> Andreas
I don't complain. I made a proposal. Someone might pick it up and make
something out of it. If no one does, then i won't cry. But if someone
comes up with such stupid tagging, rating or hiding approaches and
implements it, then I will leave the project alone, since it would be
already dead at this point.

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


julianadacostajose at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 6:42 PM

Post #46 of 69 (2637 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where
I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house
who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery
smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with
special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this
people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.

Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any
of them and you must really search very intense to find this.
I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching and
collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als
"evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
Wikipedia articles.

But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
thank you every day for this.


Juliana


2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>

> Juliana,
>
> You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
>
> I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
> I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
> material.
>
> And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
>
> Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> mainspace:
>
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
>
> So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
> a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
>
> The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> efforts:
>
> http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
> The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
> English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
> thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
> for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> this article:
>
> http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
>
> The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
>
> Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
> in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
> decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
> to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
> represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
> opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
> is a problem.
>
> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
> from moving towards the mainstream of society.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>
>
> > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
> in
> > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
> bodies
> > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
> >
> > Juliana
> >
> >
> > 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> > > tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > > > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and
> that
> > > the
> > > > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a
> > great
> > > > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from.
> > Take a
> > > > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One
> thing
> > > to
> > > > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many
> people
> > > > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short
> > time
> > > > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we
> > are a
> > > > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an
> > argument.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> > > becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results
> in
> > > the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> > > masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often
> > than
> > > other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> > > appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons
> and
> > > Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should
> give
> > > them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
> > > approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
> > > might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> > > interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
> > >
> > > By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a
> porn
> > > site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
> > > active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn
> > wiki
> > > of his own, where he says about himself,
> > >
> > > *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
> > > that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well,
> i
> > am
> > > all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
> > > looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people
> enjoy
> > > seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
> > > porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away
> > from
> > > capitalist fuckers."*
> > >
> > > There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
> > > Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary
> > sex
> > > life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
> > > mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial
> effort
> > > for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I
> > am
> > > not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New
> > York
> > > Times readership would approve?
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
> > >
> > > Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially
> if a
> > > nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to
> > reduce
> > > the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches
> like
> > > "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the
> opposite
> > > effect:
> > >
> > > - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons
> > content
> > > pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
> > > - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> > > (female)<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> > > followed by Category:Vulva<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
> > > and Category:Female
> > > genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
> > > .
> > > - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
> > > times a day<
> > >
> >
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> > > >,
> > > compared to roughly 1 view a
> > > day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG
> > >
> > > or less than one view a
> > > day<
> > >
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> > > for
> > > actual images of toothbrushes.
> > > - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of
> a
> > > toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory
> > of
> > > Category:Toothbrushes<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
> > > the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> > > primarily
> > > an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
> > > included in Category:Shaved
> > > genitalia (female)<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
> > > which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of
> > > Commons,
> > > and it is also part of Category:Female
> > > masturbation<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
> > > the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
> > > - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing
> figures
> > > will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing
> > cucumbers,
> > > but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have
> > > browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber
> > > category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media,
> where
> > > the
> > > presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.
> > >
> > > More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after
> > > maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
> > > girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
> > > the main page. --*JN
> > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > > * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think
> > that
> > > maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people
> > are
> > > actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more
> often
> > > than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush"
> > > might just get people what they're looking for more often. The
> "principle
> > > of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if
> our
> > > horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it
> > would
> > > be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
> > > Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
> > > (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4
> March
> > > 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily
> page
> > > views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
> > > toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at
> > > Category:Shaved
> > > genitalia (female)<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>
> > > and Category:Female
> > > masturbation<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
> > > every
> > > month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless
> > of
> > > how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at
> images
> > of
> > > other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of
> a
> > > tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model
> > > whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax
> > exemption
> > > and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy
> > to
> > > see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service?
> > > Probably neither. --*JN
> > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > > * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 9:24 PM

Post #47 of 69 (2637 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board
members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view:
Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and
unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response
to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"?

Andreas

2012/3/8 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>

> Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where
> I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house
> who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery
> smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with
> special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this
> people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.
>
> Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any
> of them and you must really search very intense to find this.
> I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching and
> collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als
> "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
> thank you every day for this.
>
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
>
> > Juliana,
> >
> > You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
> >
> > I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just
> like
> > I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> > on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> > to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> > responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> > Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about
> adult
> > material.
> >
> > And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> > and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
> >
> > Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> > Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> > would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> > mainspace:
> >
> >
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
> >
> > So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> > problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia
> are
> > a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> > view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> > English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> > responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
> >
> > The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> > prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> > being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> > efforts:
> >
> > http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> > The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons
> and
> > English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review
> discussion
> > thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been
> jailed
> > for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> > this article:
> >
> > http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
> >
> > The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> > in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
> >
> > Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> > years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia
> Commons
> > in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors
> who
> > decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
> > to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
> > represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is
> aggressively
> > opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream.
> That
> > is a problem.
> >
> > WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations,
> from
> > the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> > content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> > embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> > the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in
> German
> > Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing
> it
> > from moving towards the mainstream of society.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose [at] googlemail>
> >
> > > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
> > in
> > > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> > > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
> > bodies
> > > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> > > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> > > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
> > >
> > > Juliana
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> > > > tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > > > > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a
> > > great
> > > > > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from.
> > > Take a
> > > > > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One
> > thing
> > > > to
> > > > > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many
> > people
> > > > > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short
> > > time
> > > > > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we
> > > are a
> > > > > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an
> > > argument.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> > > > becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search
> results
> > in
> > > > the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> > > > masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often
> > > than
> > > > other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> > > > appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons
> > and
> > > > Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should
> > give
> > > > them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following
> that
> > > > approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing
> so
> > > > might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> > > > interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a
> > porn
> > > > site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the
> most
> > > > active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn
> > > wiki
> > > > of his own, where he says about himself,
> > > >
> > > > *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing,
> and
> > > > that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc.
> Well,
> > i
> > > am
> > > > all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like
> wanking
> > > > looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people
> > enjoy
> > > > seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be
> a
> > > > porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut
> away
> > > from
> > > > capitalist fuckers."*
> > > >
> > > > There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos
> on
> > > > Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his
> solitary
> > > sex
> > > > life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort
> of
> > > > mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial
> > effort
> > > > for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their
> donations? I
> > > am
> > > > not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New
> > > York
> > > > Times readership would approve?
> > > >
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
> > > >
> > > > Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially
> > if a
> > > > nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to
> > > reduce
> > > > the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches
> > like
> > > > "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the
> > opposite
> > > > effect:
> > > >
> > > > - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons
> > > content
> > > > pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
> > > > - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> > > > (female)<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)
> >,
> > > > followed by Category:Vulva<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
> > > > and Category:Female
> > > > genitalia<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
> > > > .
> > > > - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than
> 1,000
> > > > times a day<
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> > > > >,
> > > > compared to roughly 1 view a
> > > > day<
> > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG
> > > >
> > > > or less than one view a
> > > > day<
> > > >
> > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> > > > for
> > > > actual images of toothbrushes.
> > > > - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image
> of
> > a
> > > > toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a
> subcategory
> > > of
> > > > Category:Toothbrushes<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
> > > > the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> > > > primarily
> > > > an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
> > > > included in Category:Shaved
> > > > genitalia (female)<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)
> >,
> > > > which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of
> > > > Commons,
> > > > and it is also part of Category:Female
> > > > masturbation<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
> > > > the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
> > > > - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing
> > figures
> > > > will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing
> > > cucumbers,
> > > > but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who
> have
> > > > browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the
> cucumber
> > > > category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media,
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.
> > > >
> > > > More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were
> after
> > > > maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
> > > > girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
> > > > the main page. --*JN
> > > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > > > * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me
> think
> > > that
> > > > maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If
> people
> > > are
> > > > actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more
> > often
> > > > than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for
> "toothbrush"
> > > > might just get people what they're looking for more often. The
> > "principle
> > > > of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if
> > our
> > > > horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it
> > > would
> > > > be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
> > > > Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
> > > > (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4
> > March
> > > > 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily
> > page
> > > > views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
> > > > toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at
> > > > Category:Shaved
> > > > genitalia (female)<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)
> >
> > > > and Category:Female
> > > > masturbation<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
> > > > every
> > > > month, where this image is contained ... The other point is,
> regardless
> > > of
> > > > how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at
> > images
> > > of
> > > > other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition
> of
> > a
> > > > tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business
> model
> > > > whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax
> > > exemption
> > > > and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be
> happy
> > > to
> > > > see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn
> service?
> > > > Probably neither. --*JN
> > > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> > > > * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Mar 7, 2012, 9:40 PM

Post #48 of 69 (2624 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from
you, Phoebe, and some of the other "big" voices who have commented here. And
I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping
ease some tensions and create better dialogue. :-)

Andreas: I think
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is
one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems> now.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Mar 7, 2012, 9:45 PM

Post #49 of 69 (2622 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

MZMcBride wrote:
> Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from
> you, Phoebe, and some of the other "big" voices who have commented here. And
> I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping
> ease some tensions and create better dialogue. :-)
>
> Andreas: I think
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is
> one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems> now.

Sorry for double-posting, I forgot one more thing. There's been a bit of
discussion on Wikipedia Review about this topic, for anyone interested:

* http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37054

Larry Sanger also weighed in on his blog:

* http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-porn-filter-doa-and-a-proposal/

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Mar 7, 2012, 11:13 PM

Post #50 of 69 (2630 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

>
> If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
> French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
> woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
>
>
Uh.

So in a not insignificant part of the world that video is illegal.

Including the UK where it carries a 2 year prison sentence
for possession or distribution. I don't know of specific case law in France
but given their recent spate of obscenity laws, and the fact that Zoophilia
was outlawed in 2004, it seems likely.

In the US distributing it is often illegal to states where it is outlawed -
although no one has tested this in terms of internet distribution (at least
not to my recollection). It certainly fails the Miller Test. There are
certain countries where this will get you a death sentence.

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.