Fox News back for round II Options

[thekohser]

Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
-- by Jana Winter, FOX News

Jana just e-mailed me an alert to this story's publication. I don't think it's been mentioned yet here on Wikipedia Review. It would appear that FOX News has not been duped by Jimbo's failed attempt to spin the story.

But [James] Marsh [an attorney who represents victims of child sexual exploitation] says he has the definitive answer:

“Wikipedia has an undisputable affirmative corporate responsibility to keep such material off their sites, which are almost universally available in elementary schools and public libraries,” he said. “Every other content provider has to play by these rules. Why not Wikipedia?”

[Peter Damian]

Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
-- by Jana Winter, FOX News

Jana just e-mailed me an alert to this story's publication. I don't think it's been mentioned yet here on Wikipedia Review. It would appear that FOX News has not been duped by Jimbo's failed attempt to spin the story.

But [James] Marsh [an attorney who represents victims of child sexual exploitation] says he has the definitive answer:

“Wikipedia has an undisputable affirmative corporate responsibility to keep such material off their sites, which are almost universally available in elementary schools and public libraries,” he said. “Every other content provider has to play by these rules. Why not Wikipedia?”

Very interesting , By the way, the date says May 3, but 'the weekend purge' clearly refers the weekend of 8-9 May, yes?

[GlassBeadGame]

Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
-- by Jana Winter, FOX News

Jana just e-mailed me an alert to this story's publication. I don't think it's been mentioned yet here on Wikipedia Review. It would appear that FOX News has not been duped by Jimbo's failed attempt to spin the story.

But [James] Marsh [an attorney who represents victims of child sexual exploitation] says he has the definitive answer:

“Wikipedia has an undisputable affirmative corporate responsibility to keep such material off their sites, which are almost universally available in elementary schools and public libraries,” he said. “Every other content provider has to play by these rules. Why not Wikipedia?”

Kudos to Fox News. Imagine, Mr. Wales says the porn has been purged and they took the time and effort to look to see if that was actually the case.

[Larry Sanger]

Kudos to Fox News. Imagine, Mr. Wales says the porn has been purged and they took the time and effort to look to see if that was actually the case.

I totally agree. I told Ms. Winters that I thought this was the best of her articles yet. It hammered home precisely the points that people seemed to be most confused about, by providing specific examples, and emphasizing the dysfunctionality of the community--which, increasingly, is going to be viewed as the problem, I suspect.

[Subtle Bee]

Kudos to Fox News. Imagine, Mr. Wales says the porn has been purged and they took the time and effort to look to see if that was actually the case.

I totally agree. I told Ms. Winters that I thought this was the best of her articles yet. It hammered home precisely the points that people seemed to be most confused about, by providing specific examples, and emphasizing the dysfunctionality of the community--which, increasingly, is going to be viewed as the problem, I suspect.

Well, that's not what he's saying now {my bold}.

I haven't yet read the BBC story (just got online and haven't looked for it). The summary is that there's been a big row at Commons over pornographic images, and there were questions and complaints raised about my specific actions there. Because I don't think that's worth fighting about, I voluntarily removed all my powers to actually *do* anything using the "Founder" flag. Instead of focusing on that, what I want is to drive forward a healthy discussion about the reform of Commons policy so that it is no longer abused as a free porn hosting facility.
--Jimbo

To sum up: after years of letting things fester and stink, I tried doing something to preempt horrible press. At the first sign of trouble I gave up voluntarily, because it's easier to just talk about things, and it wasn't worth the fight. Oh yeah, I'm admitting my "'pedia" is in fact being used as a porn farm, and in a deliciously quotable byte bite.

The man is a genius.

[Moulton]

How is that "healthy discussion" on Wikimedia Ethics coming along?

[Milton Roe]

I haven't yet read the BBC story (just got online and haven't looked for it). The summary is that there's been a big row at Commons over pornographic images, and there were questions and complaints raised about my specific actions there. Because I don't think that's worth fighting about, I voluntarily removed all my powers to actually *do* anything using the "Founder" flag. Instead of focusing on that, what I want is to drive forward a healthy discussion about the reform of Commons policy so that it is no longer abused as a free porn hosting facility.
--Jimbo

God, no. It would certainly be anathema to Jimbo if WP were to be used as a FREE porn hosting facility.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge, except I guess the parts that Bomis wanted to charge for, or Wikia can still use."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

How is that "healthy discussion" on Wikimedia Ethics coming along?

Aw, jeez, man .... effics? wot, ya mean like in 'special effics' like in Battlestar Gallactic?

How could anyone focus on applied philosophies when there is List of 411 genitalia "for review".

This Jana woman at Fox is hot on the case ... she is hitting just about every button one could hope for.

What is missing are the quotes from the sponsors. I hope she has them taped. I wonder if you could ask her to list them and we can publish them as "positions" on the matter. Who said what ... especially the charitable Trusts.

This is all becoming bookworthy ... "The Great Wikipedia Porno Debate". It could grow beyond just a chapter.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

This is the incest pedophile drawing.

Clearly some of the currently available drawings are obscene, and individuals have been prosecuted for downloading and possessing similar material,” said James Marsh, an attorney who represents victims of child sexual exploitation.

Marsh says he has the definitive answer:

“Wikipedia has an undisputable affirmative corporate responsibility to keep such material off their sites, which are almost universally available in elementary schools and public libraries,” he said. “Every other content provider has to play by these rules. Why not Wikipedia?”

Obviously, the WMF CANT change. It is unable to. It is afraid of breaking the equation that "works" to its mind playing the pretense of being a mere "host" for other people's work.

Of course, it is a "host" for other people's work in that it hosts tera-swathes of other people's copyrighted work but they mean host as internet host, protected by a bogus interpretation of Section 230.

Perhaps we should take the discuss directly to people like associations of public librarians, education departments, PTAs and so on. It is pretty hard to push a product as "educational" when it is barred or limited from all establishments of education. Not a short haul work but doable.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 10th May 2010, 10:50pm

[Subtle Bee]

Perhaps we should take the discuss directly to people like associations of public librarians, education departments, PTAs and so on. It is pretty hard to push a product as "educational" when it is barred or limited from all establishments of education. Not a short haul work but doable.

What I think could be more effective is a bottom-up approach:

a) do a bit of online research (the easy kind!) to identify schools encouraging or permitting access to WP & Commons;

b) draft two letters (and this I would help with) - one to the schools and school boards in question, the other to whatever local parents' boards and councils exist - laying out the issue with informative links, and including Sanger's letter, and maybe Moller's responses. Make them compelling.

c) send them prior to board meetings/ parent-teacher nights, giving authorities a chance to take proactive steps prior to the next accountability session, or having to explain why they didn't to a bunch of outraged parents.

d) send same with a press release to local media, who have to cover these meetings where nothing interesting ever happens. Giving them the scoop will spark their enthusiasm. If you make them aware that the story has a larger context, and help them feed off each other's developments, along with the sensational rubberneck quality of the subject, you might really pique their interest.

e) entreat all those parents and boards, newly converted, to send letters to Congressfolk &tc, against a (hopefully!) media background of grassroots parental activism against the appalling spectre of WikiPron.

f) popcorn.

I also think that appealing to small-town media and parents of schoolkids is easier than to online libertarian porn-seeking dweebs, although in fact I'm much more of the latter. It's also easier for local authorities to take immediate action (ban WP from schools) than for muckymucks to strike a committee to consider amending laws with consitutional implications. That can come later. Thoughts?

I wrote that a few weeks ago, before Shotgun Larry made the task considerably easier - now it's just about giving legs, instead of getting them. I still think it's not a bad plan, with updates and modifications to account for events.

[EricBarbour]

The following have picked the story up today:

Vanity Fair

UPI

CrunchGear

Huffington Post

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 10th May 2010, 11:23pm

[tarantino]

Perhaps we should take the discuss directly to people like associations of public librarians, education departments, PTAs and so on. It is pretty hard to push a product as "educational" when it is barred or limited from all establishments of education. Not a short haul work but doable.

Here's what public librarian David Goodman says:

There is no general agreement here that any system of filtering for
any purpose is ever necessary, and I think it is totally contrary to
the entire general idea behind the the free culture movement.

But people have liberty do do as they please with our content, and if
someone wants to filter for their own purposes we cannot and should
not prevent them. Neither should we assist them.

[The Adversary]

The following have picked the story up today:

Vanity Fair

UPI

CrunchGear

Huffington Post

Heh, and then David Gerard produces this gem wrt to the Fox article: "Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register."

Mr Gerard better put BBC on his list of "vicious morons ", too.

[Cedric]

]Heh, and then David Gerard produces this gem wrt to the Fox article: "Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register."

Mr Gerard better put BBC on his list of "vicious morons ", too.

Indeed. How dare they! And after he put on his best hairpiece and suit!

[EricBarbour]

Mr. Godwin sez:

Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
"Fox News was correct"?

This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than an
actual outcome.

Well, it appears the smooth and creamy Georgewilliamherbert is reading this thread.....

Followup in major mainstream media to Jimmy's actions has been limited
at best - The BBC has a decent story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm

...And the aforementioned Vanity Fair blog, and something on
Huffington Post. There seems to be a widespread disbelief in the
underlying child porn accusation, other than at Fox.

The WMF is amazing. They are made up of some of the most self-involved, clueless computer users I've ever seen.
Jimbo ought to be congratulated for attracting the worst possible "talent" for that "project".

Amazing. Middle-aged men acting like 14-year-old twits who have just read Atlas Shrugged, and had an "epiphany". How dare anyone criticize them.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 11th May 2010, 8:02am

[Peter Damian]

Yay it's got the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wiki...privileges.html

What did I tell you. Next stop, Daily Mail. The Telegraph and the Mail are the two institutions of Middle England. (Which is in no way to be compared to the Mid West - Middle England or 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' is essentially conservative but middle class).

There is a mythology that Wikipedia used to be a crazy anarchy but that just isn’t true.

Wrong.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 11th May 2010, 4:11pm

[The Adversary]

Link all news + discussions, on various wps: Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge

[dogbiscuit]

Link all news + discussions, on various wps: Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge

They can't even report themselves accurately.

[Peter Damian]

I have added a section for Wikipedia Review discussion of the issue. I wonder how long before the anti-censorship brigade delete it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...ikipedia_Review

[ulsterman]

Link all news + discussions, on various wps: Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge

They can't even report themselves accurately.

Isn't it axiomatic even among Wikipedia's strongest supporters that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source? You can't cite Wikipedia to prove anything on Wikipedia. So of course it's inaccurate.