The assault on Wiki-Porn: A hint of motive? Options

[GlassBeadGame]

Wales:

We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195376
Perhaps that explains his choice of images. Wasn't Sanger collecting a list of images to hand out to reporters? I'll bet Wales got a copy of that list (from a reporter perhaps), and I'll further bet that the St. Therese image was on that list.

not bad, Anthony.

Although Jimbo isn't known for his thoughtfulness or deep concentration, I can't believe he's clueless enough to think his deletions will make any difference in the long run. Also, in the past Jimbo hasn't hesitated to de-sysop people for wheel warring, but not this time. There's no way his 'leadership' will stand without whacking a few commons admins. All this suggests that Jimbo had a narrow short term goal.

Wow, he even admits it.

And I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a
discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first
deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after
careful case by case discussions.

That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it.

With the apology immediately followed by:

I'm sorry I acted with such urgency, but I think it was necessary.

How can you be sorry for something that was necessary?

He deletes the controversial images, knowing full well that they'll be undeleted?

If the press lets him get away with this, I'll be...

...well, actually, I'll be unsurprised.

Maybe they were even in on it: "Look Jimbo, we love free speech as much as you do. Our business depends on it. But we can't just let this story go - we'll make too much money by reporting it. So how about you create an even bigger story, by deleting the images, and then we can run that story instead?"

All in all, I think Jimbo played this pretty well. He doesn't need the 'founder' powers that have been removed. He lost them on a point of honor that only the moronic wikipedia crowd would disagree with. He demonstrated that dealing with the worst filth at commons is beyond him, even though he tried his best. He gets to act all righteous and good. So now he basically doesn't need to deal with this shit any more. Any criticism about smut at Wikipedia and Jimbo is off the hook.

But now he is on record having admitted the problem and his attempts to address it has failed. That might be exculpatory for him but it is a very bad state of affairs those around him.

[Moulton]

I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a discussion.

Would it not have been better for Wales to demonstrate some leadership by organizing a responsible discussion?

If the community cannot responsibly discuss, develop and establish a respectable policy and practice regulating content, then WMF-sponsored sites will continue to host meritless and unregulated content of marginal or negligible historical, cultural, or educational value, to the continuing chagrin of the large donors and serious scholars.

I wanted us to take an approach that involved first deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after careful case by case discussions.

That's not a sustainable practice. Proposed content needs to be evaluated in camera before it it published to the children of the world.

That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it. ... I'm sorry I acted with such urgency, but I think it was necessary.

He's had a decade to foster the development of a functional set of policies and practices for making responsible editorial judgments regarding appropriate content. Time and again he's acted impulsively to summarily delete content without regard for its educational merit. Previously, it was manifestly educational content on the topic of managerial ethics. This time it was manifestly meritless content that revealed once again the high cost of operating a large project without a functional system of managerial ethics.

[Moulton]

That's not a sustainable practice. Proposed content needs to be evaluated in camera before it it published to the children of the world.

And even that won't work if it's a film camera.

See, that's where conventional public libraries had it so much easier. They could sequester materials in rooms not open to the general public before deciding what to put on the open shelves. And then, they could have restricted rooms for scholars and adults to gain access to selected materials not appropriate for children.

[ulsterman]

That might be exculpatory for him but it is a very bad state of affairs those around him.

Yes, that is undoubtedly true. But then, knowing what we do about Jimbo, do we think that that's a problem for him? Why should he care about the mess he's made for those around him so long as he's in the clear? Ayn Rand and all that.

See, that's where conventional public libraries had it so much easier. They could sequester materials in rooms not open to the general public before deciding what to put on the open shelves. And then, they could have restricted rooms for scholars and adults to gain access to selected materials not appropriate for children.

It's not impossible to do something like that on a Wiki. Indeed, they do exactly that by allowing admins to be able to see deleted files. So you create a "semi-deleted" status. Files with that status can only be viewed by those with a suitable "mature person" bit and you can only get such a bit by proving your identity and age, as for getting Checkuser status. Probably all freshly-uploaded files should have this status until they've been vetted.

Of course, in an ideal world only people with a "mature person" bit could stand for admin, but let's not ask for the moon.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I wanted us to take an approach that involved first deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after careful case by case discussions.

The problem is ... he knows damned fine that is impossible. We know damn fine that the obsessives are far more equipped to return time and time and time again to defend their filth ... who can really be expected to bother spending their lives against that lot ... and facing their wrath elsewhere.

If Jimmy Wales is not lying in bed at night admitting all this to himself and realising that the project is screwed he is not human.

Then go to off and go on stage and do his Guru Jimmy number selling the religion to new adherents ... how can you do it?

The lizard lady in the office grinding out crass denial propaganda I can believe. There are such people.

How do you think this will all blow over historically? Or do you think it is go ing to go down in the anals of the Wikipedia as a major turning point?

How is it going to look on Sue Gardner's CV?

[Moulton]

...go down in the anals of the Wikipedia...

For a minute there, I thought that was another Ottava typo.

[dogbiscuit]

It strikes me that Jimbo has been rather foolish in his open pronouncements that this was a tactical deletion to evade a larger problem and he has no intention of making it stick, because if the FBI do decide to diddle around in his web site and decide that they do not like what they see, then he's on record as essentially encouraging the site to keep inappropriate images.

The Labour Government, having had a couple of successful years of spin, then found that the press got rather annoyed when they realised that spin was great for being a lazy journalist but made them look stupid after a time - so the press bit back with avengeance.

In my experience, organisations like the FBI are not as stupid as the press like to make them appear, though I am not so sure about American juries who can become confused and bemused by clever lawyers.

So he is careless on a few counts:

* playing fast and loose with a legal system that may now hold him responsible as he clearly intervened in bad faith;
* he is saying openly he is playing the press - Fox News won't like being taken for saps;
* and he is essentially suggesting to the Wiki-faithful that they need not take any notice of any of his moral pronouncements because he doesn't really mean them, even if he is blustering on about how important they are.

[Jon Awbrey]

It strikes me that Jimbo has been rather foolish in his open pronouncements that this was a tactical deletion to evade a larger problem and he has no intention of making it stick, because if the FBI do decide to diddle around in his web site and decide that they do not like what they see, then he's on record as essentially encouraging the site to keep inappropriate images.

The Labour Government, having had a couple of successful years of spin, then found that the press got rather annoyed when they realised that spin was great for being a lazy journalist but made them look stupid after a time — so the press bit back with avengeance.

In my experience, organisations like the FBI are not as stupid as the press like to make them appear, though I am not so sure about American juries who can become confused and bemused by clever lawyers.

So he is careless on a few counts:

• playing fast and loose with a legal system that may now hold him responsible as he clearly intervened in bad faith;
• he is saying openly he is playing the press — Fox News won't like being taken for saps;
• and he is essentially suggesting to the Wiki-faithful that they need not take any notice of any of his moral pronouncements because he doesn't really mean them, even if he is blustering on about how important they are.

¤ sigh ¤

[Moulton]

Smoke and Mirrors

Ayup. Disingenuous bluster and hypocrisy.

[Tarc]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - Re-upload Commons artwork that's been deleted by Jimbo Wales

* Support but wait. As I suggested on Commons, I think patience is the best weapon here. We should take some time - maybe a few months - to let both Jimbo and the media calm down and divert their attention to other matters before we directly challenge his authority with a move like this. Jimbo does not hesitate to desysop admins who wheel war with him. The repealing of CSD T1, originally ordained by Jimbo, shows that his decrees can be reversed given community support and time. There is no deadline. Dcoetzee 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Except this is a proposal, so it is not wheel-warring, it is consensus. He cannot desysop anyone for that. SilverserenC 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope Jimbo hasn't been deleting furry images on Wikipedia.

Ahaha, Silver is a furfag? That explains much.

[Emperor]

My read on the spin:

The damage is done. There have likely been millions of kids exposed to hardcore pornography by reading Wikipedia. This has been going on for years.

The site does not have any system built-in to prevent this. The fact that the founder had to personally intervene shows a gigantic organizational failure.

Mr. Wales' attempt at spin here might have worked well in the early days, but we're coming up on ten years now of Wikipedia. It is what it is, not a work in progress anymore. It's a porn repository that allows free access to children. It takes advantage of tax-exempt status and donations from big corporations too.

[Jon Awbrey]

My read on the spin:

The damage is done. There have likely been millions of kids exposed to hardcore pornography by reading Wikipedia. This has been going on for years.

The site does not have any system built-in to prevent this. The fact that the founder had to personally intervene shows a gigantic organizational failure.

Mr. Wales' attempt at spin here might have worked well in the early days, but we're coming up on ten years now of Wikipedia. It is what it is, not a work in progress anymore. It's a porn repository that allows free access to children. It takes advantage of tax-exempt status and donations from big corporations too.

I think that really sums it up quite well.

Jon

[Tarc]

My read on the spin:

The damage is done. There have likely been millions of kids exposed to hardcore pornography by reading Wikipedia. This has been going on for years.

The site does not have any system built-in to prevent this. The fact that the founder had to personally intervene shows a gigantic organizational failure.

Mr. Wales' attempt at spin here might have worked well in the early days, but we're coming up on ten years now of Wikipedia. It is what it is, not a work in progress anymore. It's a porn repository that allows free access to children. It takes advantage of tax-exempt status and donations from big corporations too.

Yea, because kids can't look at porn anywhere else.

[thekohser]

Yea, because kids can't look at porn anywhere else.

In their schools, with content filtering measures in place, that may be true. And from a website with the goodwill halo of being tax-exempt, certainly true. Thank you for adding to this discussion, Tarc.

[Tarc]

Yea, because kids can't look at porn anywhere else.

In their schools, with content filtering measures in place, that may be true. And from a website with the goodwill halo of being tax-exempt, certainly true. Thank you for adding to this discussion, Tarc.

Do you really think that kids in schools actively seek out the Wikipedia pages as some sort of secret porn outlet? That they all huddle in the corner of the library, goto the Commons and giggle over every image in Category:Vagina ? Dunno if you're just old or out of touch, or if the former simply implies the latter, but I don't think you have much of a grasp on what teenagers do here and how they go about it.

I'm all for cleaning up the Commons of excess porn if it has no use in any wiki project, as it shouldn't be used as a simple image host, but this "think of the children" mentality is just a mask for getting what you want. You know it. I know it.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm all for cleaning up the Commons of excess porn if it has no use in any wiki project, as it shouldn't be used as a simple image host, but this "think of the children" mentality is just a mask for getting what you want. You know it. I know it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and its self-styled "Community" exhibit a gross lack of editorial judgment and a denial of responsibility in every area. Calling attention to that fact has been a hard row to hoe, as they say. So, yes, it serves to begin with those areas that touch most poignantly on people's lives, for example, biographies of living people and people's sense that they have a say in the socialization of children. But none of that would get people's attention if they didn't really care about those things.

Jon Awbrey

[Larry Sanger]

All in all, I think Jimbo played this pretty well. He doesn't need the 'founder' powers that have been removed. He lost them on a point of honor that only the moronic wikipedia crowd would disagree with. He demonstrated that dealing with the worst filth at commons is beyond him, even though he tried his best. He gets to act all righteous and good. So now he basically doesn't need to deal with this shit any more. Any criticism about smut at Wikipedia and Jimbo is off the hook.

But now he is on record having admitted the problem and his attempts to address it has failed. That might be exculpatory for him but it is a very bad state of affairs those around him.

And consider that now Jimmy Wales owns the results. He has pretended to have the authority to get rid of the porn. If it turns out not to disappear in the long run, and this turns out to be a major story with legs, think. If a long series of follow-up stories show that there are still boatloads of porn, and he isn't doing anything about it, then the press may conclude either (a) he was insincere, or (b) he has lost power.

There is a simple and perfectly accurate way to evaluate what's going on here: the nature of the Wikipedia community and its governance is now finally being exposed to the light of day. What do you think would happen if the general public knew what we all know? It won't be pretty. Hitherto, it's looked like there was somebody responsible in control of Wikipedia. Wales has tried to shore up his reputation as playing that function. It looked like Wikipedia was just enthusiastic and idealistic, and occasionally misguided--like a typical teenager. If journalists really dig into this story, and expose the Wikipedia community for the first time, the impression will change, drastically, for the worse.

[EricBarbour]

[gomi]

[Modnote: All the content-free joke posts have been moved to a thread in the Tar Pit.]

[EricBarbour]

Thank you for moving the stupid puns. The lower colon feels better already.