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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

Which is why one hires a well paid, well connected PR lady to sustain.

That is the power of money and how money is self-generating once you get beyond a certain level ... certainly beyond an academic's financial level.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 11th May 2010, 2:40am

[The Adversary]

I had no idea as to how much porn there was on commons, until Killiondude posted a very useful link about a month ago. As I said; that "most viewed" -list was an eye-opener, indeed. (Jeez; just the names on that list are mostly NSFW)

And looking at Bad image list ..there are pictures there, which are not allowed used on any wikipedia-page, but still hosted on commons......why??

[Moulton]

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.

During his deletion spree on May 7th, Jimbo clicked the delete button 77 times (a small number of those might be redeletions of the same image during a wheel war). Out of those 77 deletion events, 48 were still relinked 24 hours ago, and 43 are still redlinked as of this moment. So the score now stands at 43 to 34 in favor of Jimbo's personal 1-day effort to delete those selected items. Is that a win for Jimbo, given that he threw up his hands after the first skirmish?

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.

The nature of the WP community and its bizarre governance model is not easy to understand. It took me over a year to understand just how anachronistic it was. I reckon it will take a gifted journalist to translate an analysis like mine into something the public can understand.

Note that Larry, Somey, and a few others have begun to compile a list of references to otherwise obscure and technical reviews of Wikipedia's governance model, expressly for the purpose of making it easier for a determined journalist to write such a story. Has the time come to resume that project?

[Tarc]

And looking at Bad image list ..there are pictures there, which are not allowed used on any wikipedia-page, but still hosted on commons......why??

The bad image list is not a total ban, it just limits many of the images for use only on a specific page.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

During his deletion spree on May 7th, Jimbo clicked the delete button 77 times (a small number of those might be redeletions of the same image during a wheel war). Out of those 77 deletion events, 48 were still relinked 24 hours ago, and 43 are still redlinked as of this moment. So the score now stands at 43 to 34 in favor of Jimbo's personal 1-day effort to delete those selected items. Is that a win for Jimbo, given that he threw up his hands after the first skirmish?

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.

The nature of the WP community and its bizarre governance model is not easy to understand. It took me over a year to understand just how anachronistic it was. I reckon it will take a gifted journalist to translate an analysis like mine into something the public can understand.

Note that Larry, Somey, and a few others have begun to compile a list of references to otherwise obscure and technical reviews of Wikipedia's governance model, expressly for the purpose of making it easier for a determined journalist to write such a story. Has the time come to resume that project?

What part of Ignore All Rules is hard to explain?

And who do you think set that millstone in place as Wikipedia's cornerstone?

Jon

[Ottava]

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 ?

If young boys steal their mom's Victoria Secret magazine to do just that, then yes, they will look at Wikipedia for it.

Don't be ridiculous.

[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 ?

If young boys steal their mom's Victoria Secret magazine to do just that, then yes, they will look at Wikipedia for it.

Don't be ridiculous.

Yea, just like the Dads who still keep a stack of Playboys out in the garage, between the box of fishing tackle and power tools. This is the 21st century, Ottawa, still images have lost a bit of their charm. Do you still sneak peeks at the Sears catalog underwear ads?

Go hop on http://chatroulette.com, teenagers see more cock there than in Benjiboi's last birthday bash.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Tue 11th May 2010, 2:17pm

[Moulton]

What part of Ignore All Rules is hard to explain?

The part that says it only applies to the central cabal.

[Abd]

What part of Ignore All Rules is hard to explain?

The part that says it only applies to the central cabal.

Right. The problem isn't IAR, which is nothing but the common-law rule of Public Policy. The problem is a selective failure to protect those who follow it, while at the same time either improving the "rules" so that the need for IAR becomes less frequent, and so that, simultaneously, errors in ignoring rules are addressed so that they don't repeat.

A good faith IAR action should never be punished, but if it shows serious ignorance or inability to understand the guidelines, the project might be protected. That principle was enunciated in my RfAr, and it was correct, as I noted at the time. But no inability was actually shown in my case.... rather that I did not automatically do what was being demanded by a cabal was taken as a sign of IDIDN'THEARTHAT. The fact was that when I escalated an issue through DR, I was confirmed, because I didn't do this if I didn't believe that consensus would back me up. But the very fact that I ended up escalating a few issues, with "many editors" screaming at me, was taken as disruptive and harmful. And that is the damage that an unrecognized cabal can do. It creates an appearance that an editor, who criticizes the cabal or a cabal member or cabal actions, is disruptive and unwilling to edit collaboratively.

Moulton made mistakes, I believe, but the community made a bigger mistake by banning him -- or allowing him to be banned. Guido is recently making some of the same mistakes, it's common among those who come to their positions. But a mature community would be able to handle this and channel it to productive use, normally.

[Jon Awbrey]

What part of Ignore All Rules is hard to explain?

The part that says it only applies to the central cabal.

Right. The problem isn't IAR, which is nothing but the common-law rule of Public Policy. …

Putting e-side the now-familiar x-cursions into Auto-Benighting Discourse, anyone with any practical experience or philosophical background whatever can see that Ignore All Rules is just another disguise for the Thrasymachiavellian Rule Of The Stronger (WP:ROTS).

Jon

[Moulton]

Yah, it corresponds to the classic battle between God and Satan.

[CharlotteWebb]

And looking at Bad image list ..there are pictures there, which are not allowed used on any wikipedia-page, but still hosted on commons......why??

Most of the ones I checked are being used on other-language wikipedias. The description page on commons gives you a full list of pages using each file if you click through to it.

Each project maintains its own "bad image list". For example the german list appears to contain several items from commons deemed to be public-domain in the U.S. but not in Germany. Meanwhile the dutch, french, portuguese lists are empty.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

(Youtube clip)

I had no idea you were a Marillion fan. That clip fits Jon's post but I think a better Marillion theme song for this whole thing is "Incommunicado" from "Clutching at Straws"

I'll have you know, Lar, that my musical tastes are impeccable.
Misplaced Childhood is my fav Marillion disc. Straws is a good second, though, along with Script for a Jester's Tear.
I linked to Incommunicado in an earlier post but didn't do an embed. Fish's Coarse Line dance is what really makes this vid:



This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine): Wed 12th May 2010, 12:36am

[thekohser]

I, too, am a big fan of Marillion -- I even caught them in a rare U.S. appearance at World Cafe Live in Philadelphia. So important was my attendance, I suffered through a kidney stone passing out of my kidney into the ureter during the show.

(Is it blasphemy to admit that I prefer H to Fish?)

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 12th May 2010, 3:25pm

[SB_Johnny]

I, too, am a big fan of Marillion -- I even caught them in a rare U.S. appearance at World Cafe Live in Philadelphia. So important was my attendance, I suffered through a kidney stone passing out of my kidney into the ureter during the show.

(Is it blasphemy to admit that I prefer H to Fish?)

I'm soooo glad you were kind enough to share that, Greg!

[Milton Roe]

There's no accounting for taste. Here, have a janitor at a Nirvana concert. Kobain used to be a janitor. Hello.

[The Adversary]

And looking at Bad image list ..there are pictures there, which are not allowed used on any wikipedia-page, but still hosted on commons......why??

Most of the ones I checked are being used on other-language wikipedias. The description page on commons gives you a full list of pages using each file if you click through to it.

Each project maintains its own "bad image list". For example the german list appears to contain several items from commons deemed to be public-domain in the U.S. but not in Germany. Meanwhile the dutch, french, portuguese lists are empty.

That is correct, but many were not used anywhere globally, or allowed used anywhere on en.wp. That includes the infamous Cumfac-picture, and several of the "vulva"-pictures. Now; AFAIK: images are only put on this list, at least on English wp, if they have been used to vandalize with...not because they are especially bad. Why on earth can you not delete those pictures? Are people afraid that Wikipedia would possibly suddenly miss some "vulva"-shots, or, heaven forbid: some cumshot for "educational purposes" tomorrow?

And mods! Could you please split off some "different tones" to another thread?

[Moulton]

During his deletion spree on May 7th, Jimbo clicked the delete button 77 times (a small number of those might be redeletions of the same image during a wheel war). Out of those 77 deletion events, 48 were still relinked 24 hours ago, and 43 are still redlinked as of this moment. So the score now stands at 43 to 34 in favor of Jimbo's personal 1-day effort to delete those selected items.

This morning, the number of remaining redlinked items has dropped to 38. Half of them remain redlinked, and half of them have now turned blue.

So we now have the half-life of Jimbo's deletions.

The half-life of his deletions is just 5 days.

[GlassBeadGame]

During his deletion spree on May 7th, Jimbo clicked the delete button 77 times (a small number of those might be redeletions of the same image during a wheel war). Out of those 77 deletion events, 48 were still relinked 24 hours ago, and 43 are still redlinked as of this moment. So the score now stands at 43 to 34 in favor of Jimbo's personal 1-day effort to delete those selected items.

This morning, the number of remaining redlinked items has dropped to 38. Half of them remain redlinked, and half of them have now turned blue.

So we now have the half-life of Jimbo's deletions.

The half-life of his deletions is just 5 days.

Only nerds would implement half-measures with mathematical precision.

[Milton Roe]

So we now have the half-life of Jimbo's deletions.

The half-life of his deletions is just 5 days.

It's kind of pleasant, in sort of satisfying-justice sense, to see Jimbo laboring away, doing things which just get reverted and perverted, resulting in his having wasted his time. And all this due to his own policies.

Now, soon, Jimbo will sit there and have an empathetic epiphany: "Gee, if it's this bad for ME, I wonder what it's like for the average editor without my SuperPowerz?"




Nah, just kidding.