| |
|
  |
 Why Is Wikipedia Still Doling Out Porn?, It's a dirty job, and there's no one else doing it? |
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
I find this interesting... On my blog/spam/news site, Examiner, I once made the comment: QUOTE Jeffrey Risner believes that when you look up photos to illustrate "underwater", one of the first things you should see, whether you like it or not, is a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub. I guess that fact is the opposite of whatever "pure sensationalism" is. And from this Fox News article now, it says: QUOTE Search for the word “underwater†and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub. I guess Examiner is influencing the mainstream media? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 24th February 2012, 6:18pm)  QUOTE a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub QUOTE a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub. Yes, a vague similarity I grant you. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:25pm) QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm) Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off much more than Youtube (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But now we can add Examiner to their list of quality sources too. Face fucking palm. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:33pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:25pm) QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm) Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off much more than Youtube (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But now we can add Examiner to their list of quality sources too. Face fucking palm. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Well done, Fox. I guess this came from Larry? QUOTE “Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized,†Jay Walsh, a Wikipedia spokesperson, told FoxNews.com. And there I thought the board had decided that there was not going to be any content labeling or categorisation. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Selection and implementation of an image filter was due to begin in January. It was due to be discussed at a Foundation Board meeting a couple of weeks back, but in the end, Jimbo said, the Board didn't get round to it. This post has been edited by HRIP7: |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 24th February 2012, 6:18pm) I find this interesting... On my blog/spam/news site, Examiner, I once made the comment: QUOTE Jeffrey Risner believes that when you look up photos to illustrate "underwater", one of the first things you should see, whether you like it or not, is a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub. I guess that fact is the opposite of whatever "pure sensationalism" is. And from this Fox News article now, it says: QUOTE Search for the word “underwater†and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub. I guess Examiner is influencing the mainstream media? Let's hope it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:59pm) Selection and implementation of an image filter was due to begin in January. It was due to be discussed at a Foundation Board meeting a couple of weeks back, but in the end, Jimbo said, the Board didn't get round to it. I wonder how long it will take for the board to realize that they're essentially serving as a foil for Jimmy. As long as they're stupid enough to play the scapegoat, he can continue to claim that he's trying (very, very, very hard) to make things better, but that darn do-nothing board is to blame for everything. How much does he get paid for speaking engagements these days? Fortunately his "special relationship" means that he doesn't have to give the WMF a cut (not that they need it). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Web Fred |
|
Pervert & Swinger
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 9:04pm) QUOTE Walsh says one reason explicit content is so easy to find has to do with Wikipedia’s worldwide accessibility. “It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures.
They should have asked which nation or culture revels in images of spitting semen into somebody's mouth. I would have thought that it's just the weather for snowballing. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
On the one hand, I can't manage any sympathy for the WMF in this matter. On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's other content? Of course not. The lunatic right has been bitching them out for hiring more liberal and moderate commentators. And look at the Conservapedia article about Fox. Funny as hell because it's totally insane, but it makes a valid point: Murdoch is more interested in dollars than in "conservative purity". You cannot trust them to make decisions that are favorable to society at large, any more than you can trust Wales to do so. This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:17pm) On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have
unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any
political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic
purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing
ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these
rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's
other content? Of course not. This analysis is on the money, as it were. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) The sudden interest of Fox News in Larry Sanger's critique of pornographic content on Wikipedia seems to be almost engineered to egg-on the well-documented prurient obsessions of Fox-News types. The outraged consumer of Fox News content will point a browser to this investigative report solely on the basis of the word "pornography" in the headline. They'll tut-tut, dutifully scour Wikipedia for said pornography, rub out a quick one, and then loudly proclaim that the godless lib'rruls are corruptin' the chill'un with their interwebs. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Larry Sanger |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined:
Member No.: 19,790
|
QUOTE(iii @ Fri 24th February 2012, 7:31pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:17pm) On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have
unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any
political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic
purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing
ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these
rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's
other content? Of course not. This analysis is on the money, as it were. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) The sudden interest of Fox News in Larry Sanger's critique of pornographic content on Wikipedia seems to be almost engineered to egg-on the well-documented prurient obsessions of Fox-News types. The outraged consumer of Fox News content will point a browser to this investigative report solely on the basis of the word "pornography" in the headline. They'll tut-tut, dutifully scour Wikipedia for said pornography, rub out a quick one, and then loudly proclaim that the godless lib'rruls are corruptin' the chill'un with their interwebs. Hm. I didn't see any mention of "godless lib'rruls" or any other conservative shibboleths in this particular article. Far be it from me to defend Fox News, but I thought the point of the article was to follow up the controversy of April/May 2010--to say that, in fact, if you had the impression that some sort of porn filter would quickly be installed on Wikipedia anytime soon, you would have been wrong. It's too bad that only FoxNews.com takes an interest in this story, but that doesn't mean it is strictly a conservative story or that the story as they tell is wrong. In fact, the story is pretty much correct and on the mark in every respect, as far as I can tell. Do you have something to say about the story, as opposed to the source you found it in? Anyway, enough meta-discussion. The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this. "Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized." Oh, that's true, I'm sure. But the point is that there are lots of pictures of semen-covered faces, scores (hundreds?) of penises, objects inserted into all sorts of orifices, drawings of children being sexually molested, and various other things. These are some examples of the "controversial content" in question. And ultimately, the question is not whether such content should be called "pornography"--really, who cares? The question is whether such content should be treated in the same relatively mature way it is treated by a website like Flickr--or even websites that host explicit porn, but which have users confirm that they are over 18. Why on Earth should Wikip/media insist on being more explicit in how it presents its porn than an actual porn site? "Wikipedia argues that parents and guardians should monitor at all times what kids can view online, and Walsh says guardians should be the ones to restrict access." This sounds responsive to the issue, but it really isn't. Even if a parent is looking over the child's shoulder, he should have the ability to determine whether a child should be shown the full monty. Wikip/media doesn't give him that ability. And besides, it's not only about children. Some adults don't want to be confronted with these images, and would strongly prefer to be able to exclude them from searches and so forth that they make, just as Google Image Search (not at all for prudes--when safe search is off!) does. No, the issue is whether Wikip/media gives its users the tools that they need to "restrict access" in the way they want. "These articles contain referenced and documented information about a known topic. These topics may not be of interest or appealing to all people." What a ridiculous, even childish thing to say, even if we understand him to be talking about Wikipedia only and not Wikimedia Commons. That articles may not be of "interest" or "appealing to" people is obviously not the issue. The issue is whether Wikipedia is serving the public in a sensible way, that serves their expectations and interests. I would argue that clearly it isn't. But again, Walsh's job is impossible. There is no way that he can address that issue (whether the lack of a filter serves the interests of all users, but especially users with children) head-on and be anything but ridiculous or outrageous. "But even those who produce pornographic content oppose having explicit images so easily accessible on Wikipedia. Q Boyer, a spokesperson for Pink Visual, a company that produces pornographic films, says Wikipedia should at least use a content filter similar to the SafeSearch function on Google.com." I want to see some serious journalist describe a half-dozen extremely explicit images on Wikipedia and Commons, then read the bit from Q Boyer to Jimmy Wales, and then ask, "It's been almost two years. Why hasn't Wikipedia adopted some common-sense filter of that sort, a filter that even a pornography company uses?" I would add: "Aren't you ashamed to be associated with an organization that drags its feet on such a thing even while recommending that the site be used by school children?" "It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures. As a volunteer, non-profit project we're simply not resourced to do that," says Jay. Wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. It's just another data field. Yes, they've got a lot of images, but so does Flickr. And they've got a lot of people at work on the project, and the vast majority of images are fine and so can be quickly and easily labeled. If they were serious about it, they'd come up with tools that would allow users to label (categorize, or whatever) multiple pictures on a single page, using category and user markers as indicators of which pictures to review first. It's a big job, but it's totally possible. Hold contests to see who can label the most pictures. Invite people in from outside the website for this purpose (of course, Wikip/media would never do that, but they could). Do meta-review of image reviewers--if someone mislabels images enough, they lose the privilege of doing so. Etc., etc. And don't talk to me about the system being imperfect. All systems are imperfect, but a somewhat leaky filter is better than no filter. And also don't talk to me about there being impossible issues to resolve. Bullshit. Wikipedia makes decisions about all sorts of hard issues, and prides itself on doing so. This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sat 25th February 2012, 3:16am) Hm. I didn't see any mention of "godless lib'rruls" or any other conservative shibboleths in this particular article. Far be it from me to defend Fox News, but I thought the point of the article was to follow up the controversy of April/May 2010--to say that, in fact, if you had the impression that some sort of porn filter would quickly be installed on Wikipedia anytime soon, you would have been wrong.
It's too bad that only FoxNews.com takes an interest in this story, but that doesn't mean it is strictly a conservative story or that the story as they tell is wrong. In fact, the story is pretty much correct and on the mark in every respect, as far as I can tell. Do you have something to say about the story, as opposed to the source you found it in?
Anyway, enough meta-discussion. The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this.
"Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized." Oh, that's true, I'm sure. But the point is that there are lots of pictures of semen-covered faces, scores (hundreds?) of penises, objects inserted into all sorts of orifices, drawings of children being sexually molested, and various other things. These are some examples of the "controversial content" in question. And ultimately, the question is not whether such content should be called "pornography"--really, who cares? The question is whether such content should be treated in the same relatively mature way it is treated by a website like Flickr--or even websites that host explicit porn, but which have users confirm that they are over 18. Why on Earth should Wikip/media insist on being more explicit in how it presents its porn than an actual porn site?
"Wikipedia argues that parents and guardians should monitor at all times what kids can view online, and Walsh says guardians should be the ones to restrict access." This sounds responsive to the issue, but it really isn't. Even if a parent is looking over the child's shoulder, he should have the ability to determine whether a child should be shown the full monty. Wikip/media doesn't give him that ability. And besides, it's not only about children. Some adults don't want to be confronted with these images, and would strongly prefer to be able to exclude them from searches and so forth that they make, just as Google Image Search (not at all for prudes--when safe search is off!) does. No, the issue is whether Wikip/media gives its users the tools that they need to "restrict access" in the way they want.
"These articles contain referenced and documented information about a known topic. These topics may not be of interest or appealing to all people." What a ridiculous, even childish thing to say, even if we understand him to be talking about Wikipedia only and not Wikimedia Commons. That articles may not be of "interest" or "appealing to" people is obviously not the issue. The issue is whether Wikipedia is serving the public in a sensible way, that serves their expectations and interests. I would argue that clearly it isn't. But again, Walsh's job is impossible. There is no way that he can address that issue (whether the lack of a filter serves the interests of all users, but especially users with children) head-on and be anything but ridiculous or outrageous.
"But even those who produce pornographic content oppose having explicit images so easily accessible on Wikipedia. Q Boyer, a spokesperson for Pink Visual, a company that produces pornographic films, says Wikipedia should at least use a content filter similar to the SafeSearch function on Google.com." I want to see some serious journalist describe a half-dozen extremely explicit images on Wikipedia and Commons, then read the bit from Q Boyer to Jimmy Wales, and then ask, "It's been almost two years. Why hasn't Wikipedia adopted some common-sense filter of that sort, a filter that even a pornography company uses?" I would add: "Aren't you ashamed to be associated with an organization that drags its feet on such a thing even while recommending that the site be used by school children?"
"It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures. As a volunteer, non-profit project we're simply not resourced to do that," says Jay. Wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. It's just another data field. Yes, they've got a lot of images, but so does Flickr. And they've got a lot of people at work on the project, and the vast majority of images are fine and so can be quickly and easily labeled. If they were serious about it, they'd come up with tools that would allow users to label (categorize, or whatever) multiple pictures on a single page, using category and user markers as indicators of which pictures to review first. It's a big job, but it's totally possible. Hold contests to see who can label the most pictures. Invite people in from outside the website for this purpose (of course, Wikip/media would never do that, but they could). Do meta-review of image reviewers--if someone mislabels images enough, they lose the privilege of doing so. Etc., etc. And don't talk to me about the system being imperfect. All systems are imperfect, but a somewhat leaky filter is better than no filter. And also don't talk to me about there being impossible issues to resolve. Bullshit. Wikipedia makes decisions about all sorts of hard issues, and prides itself on doing so.
Well said. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) And I agree, this is a well-researched article. The Wikimedian argument about there being no perfectly "neutral" way to categorise images (and that therefore it should not be attempted at all) simply does not stand up. Neutrality, as a Wikipedia pillar, is defined as following, first and foremost, the line of the most reputable mainstream sources. And whatever Wikim/pedia is doing here, it is not that. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sat 25th February 2012, 3:16am) The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this. That is correct. And I'd still like to know what Mr. Walsh continues to say these things. The Fox story isn't bad, they sometimes produce decent copy. Their problem is their public reputation. Go and watch The Daily Show for a week--they spend a remarkable amount of time mocking bits of Fox News video, routinely. Supposedly Jon Stewart sits all day long, watching Fox for "material". There's something a bit off when you have a comedian, watching a "news channel", to steal ideas for jokes--at the channel's expense. Other commentators derive whole careers from whatever incoherent twaddle comes out of O'Reilly's or Hannity's or Steve Doocy's mouth. And they had Glenn Beck, the king of paranoid shit, for TWO YEARS. During which he became their #1 program, for a brief time. Fox's report is all well and fine. When you get the New York Times or the Washington Post to write about this, then I'll really be impressed. So will a lot of other people. Anyone following the Tim Messer-Kruse story? It's been going on for THREE YEARS, and recently resulted in Messer-Kruse writing it up. It was a major embarrassment for the Magicpedia. I haven't seen much "mainstream" coverage of it. In fact, not much coverage of it, period. The media keeps giving Jimmy and Co. a free ride. Why? QUOTE The Wikimedian argument about there being no perfectly "neutral" way to categorise images (and that therefore it should not be attempted at all) simply does not stand up. Neutrality, as a Wikipedia pillar, is defined as following, first and foremost, the line of the most reputable mainstream sources. And whatever Wikim/pedia is doing here, it is not that. That's the essence of it -- Wikimedia's approach is profoundly hypocritical and absurd. They love the free content their volunteers generate, but they dare not piss off a substantial percentage of their crazed fan-following by censoring and filtering anything. And you need Fox News, never a paragon of consistency or journalistic integrity (like it or not, that's their reputation), to point it out. Not good, no matter what your position on penis photos is -- or on Fox News. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
