Current State of Wikipedia on the Porn Issue ? Options

[Jon Awbrey]

Where would I find our best introduction or most succinct summary for interested outsiders on the current state of the Wiki-Porn issue?

There are active discussions of related matters on Facebook, and it always astounds me how often casual observers get taken in by Jimmy Sue's disinformation campaigns.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Somey]

For a succinct and clear summary, one of us is going to have to write a blog entry, and I suspect that the someone should probably be me. The problem is that it's very hard to maintain any sort of serious, or even non-lowbrow, discussion about porn anywhere on the internet, even on sites with closed and heavily-vetted membership lists. WR is no exception. Such discussions always go off on tangents and are full of various obscene/silly references and such... many of which are posted by yours truly, of course.

Another problem is that not everyone here agrees on just how serious the problem is, or whether or not it's an issue we should rally around, even if we support the more general notion that WP has waaaay too much porn.

Having said that, I actually liked the recent thread on the so-called "2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content" by WMF consultant Robert Harris. It actually started out taking a fairly positive slant, with many of us wanting to give the WMF/WP folks the benefit of the doubt, etc., and follows through almost to the point of conclusively proving that nothing positive will happen as a result of it. (I should say that it also contains one of my own better recent moments, when I pointed out (around page 6, I think) that of the roughly 1,000 penis photos on Wikimedia Commons, there actually was one taken of a black guy, contrary to what Harris had observed - only it's a grotesquely diseased black-guy penis, not a nice healthy one like all the white-guy penises.)

Anyway, I was thinking we could try to work out something fairly brief that covers all the main points, with a few links to key evidenciary pages, and then write it up and post it both here and on the blog. It could (and probably should) have some humor in it, but not of a sexual nature, since that would just be too obvious, and (I daresay) too cheap.

[carbuncle]

This link should serve as an example of the current state.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Jon Awbrey]

My request was incited by one commentator's impression that Jimbo had largely taken care of the problem in his recent highly-publicized porn-purge, which we all know had the same net effect of zero if not negative that all his highly-publicized pretensions do.

Just by way of orientation for the project, here are the comments I posted on Alison's Facebook thread:

This hasn't been one of those issues that I've followed all that closely, mostly because I find it extremely depressing, but I've asked other participants in The Wikipedia Review to help assemble a summary of the current state of things. Here is the thread that I initiated:

â–º http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33021

The issue for me is not censorship, or else I'd personally be choosing to err on the side of the ACLU if I had to err at all. The issues are things like Hostile Work Environment, Child Labor, Truth In Advertising, and the Definition of an Encyclopedia. I believe in the maximum rational freedom of artistic expression and scientific inquiry. That means we have to tolerate all sorts of crap in the world, but it doesn't mean you can have your favorite e-rotica as your screen-saver at work, it doesn't mean you can experiment on undergraduates without going through proper channels, and it doesn't mean you can e-tice children “volunteers” to work into the early AM with who knows or who cares what kinds of adult “volunteers” on your tax-advantaged “charity” project for free.

[Kelly Martin]

As I've said elsewhere here, Jimbo's porn-purge was intended to fail. Jimbo has, on several occasions, "championed" positions he knew would enrage the community, and which he did not himself support, solely because he needed to for publicity purposes.

If Jimbo truly supports a position, he will manipulate things through the backchannels to build "organic" support for it, so that his eventual edict appears to be merely a restatement of preexisting community opinion. The fact that he did not do this with respect to the porn issue clearly indicates that he is not concerned about Wikipedia's (and Wikimedia's) use as a repository of sexually explicit images. Indeed, his strategy here was to generate the appearance that "something has been done" without actually doing anything about it; that strategy appears to have been entirely successful.

Remember that Jimbo's primary goal in managing Wikipedia is to maximize participation (as measured by three metrics: page views, edits, and active editors). This is evident from several public and leaked private comments made by Jimbo, Sue, and Erik. Actually removing the porn is contrary to that goal. Jimbo's deletion spree had the effect (which I believe was entirely intentional) of cementing the notion that porn, of any and all sorts, is appropriate content for Wikimedia Commons, because that position maximizes participation.

[thekohser]

Jon, I think that my own Examiner article about a particular aspect of the phenomenon is quite readable and easily understood.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon, I think that my own Examiner article about a particular aspect of the phenomenon is quite readable and easily understood.

Thanks, Greg. I was under the impression that we had a WR Editorial on that whole brouhaha, but I couldn't find it when I looked. It appears that it may have been your article that I had in mind.

Here is the notice that I added to Alison's Facebook thread:

Reports of Jimbo's porn purge are greatly exaggerated. Gregory Kohs wrote an article for The Examiner that aptly summed up the wiki-wimper on Wikipedia that aftermathed the big bang in the Media:

â–º Wikimedia Commons Cannot Control Teen Pornography

[Jon Awbrey]

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[carbuncle]

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

It might be a more interesting thread if I could also read what is being said on Facebook, which I can't...

[Jon Awbrey]

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

It might be a more interesting thread if I could also read what is being said on Facebook, which I can't …

I copied most of my Facebook comments here, but I don't have the right to copy others. At any rate, you didn't miss much. It was the usual thing where all the Wiki-Addicted Communicants wimp out as soon as they begin to fear they might loose their ticket to communion for criticizing Duh Mudder Church.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Larry Sanger]

This is actually a good question. I wish I had time to write about it myself. The potential for so many zingers is insane, and this is the time to get them out.

The WMF and Wales were pretending, alternatively, that there was no porn, and that they were taking care of the porn problem (on Commons) by deleting it. Nobody other than Fox reported that this was a pretty much completely abortive effort, that the porn was still there.

No journalist or, heck, any high-profile or merely quite coherent blog post has made the following point systematically: the WMF and Wikipedians like Wales, on the one hand, encourage and praise the use of WP for education of children; and, on the other hand, many Wikipedians themselves and many WP pages loudly proclaim that it is not "censored for children." (You know, the way, say, the New York Times or Britannica is "censored for children.") This would be the perfect context to point out that plenty of WP editors and admins are underage, and that WP is supported as a non-profit in this activity/management stance.

Nobody has done much of a follow-up about the Harris study, or explained how and why nothing seems to be getting done about it.

The basic point is that WP is run by what someone here is pleased to call Freie Kultur Kinder, by more or less adolescent males, themselves childless and radical on the issue of how free their porn must be. This manifests itself in all sorts of ways. Not just the proliferation of porn, but also the whole infantile community culture.

I talked on the phone at great length something like 8-10 months ago with both Gardner and Harris. Gardner seemed sincere about her desire to get something started about various issues I had raised. But nothing happened--well, nothing worth getting excited about.

Wikipedia deserves to have an accurate reputation. A reputation that reflects how it is really run.

The challenge is to write about such things in a way and in a venue not associated with conservatives...

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia deserves to have an accurate reputation. A reputation that reflects how it is really run.

I am writing a short piece for a journal (a rather modest journal, but an academic peer-reviewed journal with a respectable editorial board) about Wikipedia. I will be saying a little about its administration, and more I wrote it down the more absurd and corrupt it appears. E.g.

* It is run by a hierarchy of about 500 administrators.
* The election process is entirely run by these administrators
* Successful candidates have to be approved by senior administrators
* Non-administrators can participate in the election, but this is strongly discouraged unless the voter has proven sympathies with the administration
* Canvassing for elections, or for any cause whatsoever, is strictly prohibited ...
* ... except for administrators, who have a special chat room set up to block any actions or behaviour they deem 'disruptive'
* Elections for the governing committee are similarly controlled.
* There is little control over 'alternative accounts' which effectively give multiple votes to the same person
* Except of course for voters who are suspected not to be comp[letely loyal to the administration
* Those convicted of any offence against the administration (this is called 'disruption') are not allowed to speak in their defence. They are sometimes allowed to keep their own talk page, but this is very often blocked, in case they say something 'disruptive'.
* Hearings for special cases are generally held in secret

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

[edit] Except in the case of dictatorships, the people can take to the streets in the physical world and throw stuff and shout. In the virtual world, this is much more difficult.

Imagine a world in which absolutely everything was run like Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Milton Roe]

This is actually a good question. I wish I had time to write about it myself. The potential for so many zingers is insane, and this is the time to get them out.

The WMF and Wales were pretending, alternatively, that there was no porn, and that they were taking care of the porn problem (on Commons) by deleting it. Nobody other than Fox reported that this was a pretty much completely abortive effort, that the porn was still there.

O! Say could you see in the net's early days;
What so proudly we thought was a reference work forming,
Where broad strokes and bright thoughts, though the fog and the haze,
Where from hives as we watched, worker bees were still swarming?
But then Jimbo's red glare, and his blasts of hot air,
Gave proof to the Right that the porn was still there;
O! say is that Commons still kept in disrepair?
With the content that is free, and the porn that's still there?


-MR

N.B.: That just came to me, inspiration unknown. It's sort of in ballad meter and style, so I think it would do well as a Wikipedia drinking song. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[EricBarbour]

I am writing a short piece for a journal (a rather modest journal, but an academic peer-reviewed journal with a respectable editorial board) about Wikipedia. I will be saying a little about its administration, and more I wrote it down the more absurd and corrupt it appears. E.g.

* It is run by a hierarchy of about 500 administrators.
* The election process is entirely run by these administrators
* Successful candidates have to be approved by senior administrators
* Non-administrators can participate in the election, but this is strongly discouraged unless the voter has proven sympathies with the administration
* Canvassing for elections, or for any cause whatsoever, is strictly prohibited ...
* ... except for administrators, who have a special chat room set up to block any actions or behaviour they deem 'disruptive'
* Elections for the governing committee are similarly controlled.
* There is little control over 'alternative accounts' which effectively give multiple votes to the same person
* Except of course for voters who are suspected not to be completely loyal to the administration
* Those convicted of any offence against the administration (this is called 'disruption') are not allowed to speak in their defence. They are sometimes allowed to keep their own talk page, but this is very often blocked, in case they say something 'disruptive'.
* Hearings for special cases are generally held in secret

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

Sounds accurate to me.

YES, please get it published somewhere!

[Jon Awbrey]

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

All in All, a Culture of Deception …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[MZMcBride]

Wikipedia deserves to have an accurate reputation. A reputation that reflects how it is really run.

I am writing a short piece for a journal (a rather modest journal, but an academic peer-reviewed journal with a respectable editorial board) about Wikipedia. I will be saying a little about its administration, and more I wrote it down the more absurd and corrupt it appears. E.g.

* [blah blah blah... tinfoil hat donned ... blah blah blah]

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

[edit] Except in the case of dictatorships, the people can take to the streets in the physical world and throw stuff and shout. In the virtual world, this is much more difficult.

Imagine a world in which absolutely everything was run like Wikipedia.

This is satire, right? Silly rabbit.

[HRIP7]

Here is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an archived version, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an

optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[carbuncle]

Here is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an archived version, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an

optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

Tineye says it came from ED...

[HRIP7]

Here is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an archived version, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an

optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

Tineye says it came from ED...

It's on a bunch of blogs as well. What's the current status with this sort of stuff? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.

[tarantino]

What's the current status with this sort of stuff? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.

That's the work of Tgcomix / Blackshade9 / Ganymede / Midnight68 , etc. Despite having accounts blocked on commons, enwiki, meta and simple, he is still welcome to contribute to other wikimedia projects, as well as creating new accounts to use.

Here is his latest Blogger profile.

Two of his new wm accounts must be HURRDURR and OldYorkBradley.

This post has been edited by tarantino: