Shankbone's Porn photos deleted from Commons, "courtesy delete" by Jimbo Wales "per request of upload Options

[Kato]

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264883988

Not that I'm complaining though. If someone wants to withdraw their work, they should have the right to do so.

Just as if some barely known figure not covered by mainstream encyclopedias wants to OPT-OUT of having a WP biography, they should have that right. Especially if the biography creator also wants the article deleted as well.

[gomi]

Not that I'm complaining though. If someone wants to withdraw their work, they should have the right to do so.

It's an interesting situation. I agree with you regarding at least one aspect of this: those photographs should have never been accepted into an "encyclopedia" to begin with. On the other hand, the GPL is a bit of a roach motel: once things check in, they are never supposed to check out. That doesn't obligate Wikipedia to continue to host them, so Jimbo's action was technically legal. However, at least one Wikipedia admin was banned for deleting his own uploaded images en masse (I forget who at this point), so it is important to remember that deletion of anything from Wikipedia is at Jimbo's whim, rather than covered by any rational policy.

[JoseClutch]

Not that I'm complaining though. If someone wants to withdraw their work, they should have the right to do so.

It's an interesting situation. I agree with you regarding at least one aspect of this: those photographs should have never been accepted into an "encyclopedia" to begin with. On the other hand, the GPL is a bit of a roach motel: once things check in, they are never supposed to check out. That doesn't obligate Wikipedia to continue to host them, so Jimbo's action was technically legal. However, at least one Wikipedia admin was banned for deleting his own uploaded images en masse (I forget who at this point), so it is important to remember that deletion of anything from Wikipedia is at Jimbo's whim, rather than covered by any rational policy.

True. On the other hand, deletions of this kind are pretty routine in most cases. Most author requests are honored. I have probably deleted at least 50 pages upon the author's request, and denied zero such requests.

[Somey]

Personally, I suspect this has more to do with Dave's future employment prospects than his desire to be taken seriously as an artiste, or to avoid situations where "haters" appear to him to focus solely on the hardcore-porn aspect of his oeuvre, as opposed to the more serious photographs of things like homeless women and their feminine-hygeine products, or chihuahuas.

Let's hope this can be an object lesson for all WP'ers out there with digital cameras: The mere fact that you upload hundreds, even thousands, of images to Wikipedia doesn't guarantee you that dream job you wanted in the all-male-porn industry, particularly in troubled economic times such as these. At the very least, you should consider the possibility that you might have to take an "interim" position at a bank, insurance company, or law firm before you can embark on your true calling.

[GlassBeadGame]

Any editorial self-restraint should be encouraged even if the reasons have nothing to do with acting in a socially responsible manner. A Wikipedian having trouble finding a job seems to be a good enough reason for abandoning "information wants to free" even if concern over the exposure of children to the material is not.

[Bottled_Spider]

Let us not be complacent. Shankers could be deleting his porn pics simply to lull everyone into a false sense of security prior to uploading a whole bunch of stuff that is even more filthy and depraved. Such as material involving "utensils", for instance. We must be vigilant, and Jimbo must be prepared to use his "courtesy deletion finger" when called upon to wipe off bad uploads and generally clean up the mess.

[EricBarbour]

Shankers could be deleting his porn pics simply to lull everyone into a false sense of security prior to uploading a whole bunch of stuff that is even more filthy and depraved.

I certainly hope so. Something far more politically embarrassing.
The damn fools are bringing it upon themselves.

...Crap! That gay-porn film photo set was outstanding. So over the top
that I could blog it, and make people smile (and gag).

[Kelly Martin]

Shankers is a fr00t l00p. That said, Wikipedia and its brethren should respect courtesy deletion requests, because it's the ethically responsible thing to do. The "no backsies" interpretation of the GPL (which is legally unjustifiable) that many Wikipediots cling to is unmitigated assholery of the first order.

[Kato]

The "no backsies" interpretation of the GPL (which is legally unjustifiable) that many Wikipediots cling to is unmitigated assholery of the first order.

Indeed.

And the Jimbo / Shankers combo of quietly deleting them - without some crazed nothing-to-lose mousemob arguing the toss - is the wisest thing to do as well.

This should have been the practice for borderline or controversial BLP's, and incidents like the Virgin Killer debate - which should never be left to the dysfunctional community.

Innocents argue that decisions should be made on Wikipedia by all this "democratic consensus building" they talk about. Well it might work in a serious environment, but that kind of governance is an abject failure when applied to the anonymous, unaccountable community of Wikipedia. Instead decisions, if they get made at all, are as a result of unseemly mob-rule and naked bullying, not "democratic consensus building". And after the fact, it is usually apparent that the bullying is being led by some nut-job who isn't even playing by the conventions anyway. How many times have we looked at a dysfunctional deletion debate, and discovered that the main protagonists are sockpuppets, rampant canvassers, or abusers pushing a bizarre stance in some form?

[Somey]

And the Jimbo / Shankers combo of quietly deleting them - without some crazed nothing-to-lose mousemob arguing the toss - is the wisest thing to do as well.

Good point! What we should really be asking ourselves is, how can we make Jimbo more "scalable," so as to bypass the mousemob in situations where there's a real need to get something useful or decent done with a minimum of fuss?

Maybe what WP needs is some sort of "Benevolent Robo-Jimbo," sort of like an AI construct that fixes problems, but without all the rampant irresponsible/egotistical overhead of the "real" Jimbo.

[Moulton]

Shirley, you jest?

Maybe what WP needs is some sort of "Benevolent Robo-Jimbo," sort of like an AI construct that fixes problems, but without all the rampant irresponsible/egotistical overhead of the "real" Jimbo.

An ethical Jimbo?!? The mind boggles!

There isn't enough preposterone in the AI Labs to fuel such a ludicrous construct.

[One]

And the Jimbo / Shankers combo of quietly deleting them - without some crazed nothing-to-lose mousemob arguing the toss - is the wisest thing to do as well.

Yeah, this was well-handled really. The NOTCENSORED crowd would have made this very difficult to delete otherwise, and for no good reason at all.

[Doc glasgow]

The "no backsies" interpretation of the GPL (which is legally unjustifiable) that many Wikipediots cling to is unmitigated assholery of the first order.

Indeed.

And the Jimbo / Shankers combo of quietly deleting them - without some crazed nothing-to-lose mousemob arguing the toss - is the wisest thing to do as well.

This should have been the practice for borderline or controversial BLP's, and incidents like the Virgin Killer debate - which should never be left to the dysfunctional community.

Innocents argue that decisions should be made on Wikipedia by all this "democratic consensus building" they talk about. Well it might work in a serious environment, but that kind of governance is an abject failure when applied to the anonymous, unaccountable community of Wikipedia. Instead decisions, if they get made at all, are as a result of unseemly mob-rule and naked bullying, not "democratic consensus building". And after the fact, it is usually apparent that the bullying is being led by some nut-job who isn't even playing by the conventions anyway. How many times have we looked at a dysfunctional deletion debate, and discovered that the main protagonists are sockpuppets, rampant canvassers, or abusers pushing a bizarre stance in some form?

What wikipedia never understood is that a democracy of the "who is motivated enough to comment in each obscure case" isn't democracy at all - it's rule by the bully, the clueless with time to waste, the blatantly self-interested, and the ideologically over-motivated. It isn't even mob rule, it's thug rule. Occasionally, you get lucky and the morons cancel each other out - but that's hit and miss.

Any Sociologist will tell you that once you get beyond a small face-to-face community, democracy needs some representative element or it is finished. Athenian democracy perished for good reason.

I suspect that's also one of the reasons why Wikipedia Review criticism has also been equivocal on those of us who've used a "screw process, screw consensus" attitude to force our way on BLPs. People here instinctively oppose the thugogracy because it tends to screw BLP victims - the problem is that the only way for the righteous to prevail in a thugocracy is to out thug the masses.

Cavemen rule.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[GlassBeadGame]

What wikipedia never understood is that a democracy of the "who is motivated enough to comment in each obscure case" isn't democracy at all - it's rule by the bully, the clueless with time to waste, the blatantly self-interested, and the ideologically over-motivated. It isn't even mob rule, it's thug rule. Occasionally, you get lucky and the morons cancel each other out - but that's hit and miss.

Any Sociologist will tell you that once you get beyond a small face-to-face community, democracy needs some representative element or it is finished. Athenian democracy perished for good reason.

I suspect that's also one of the reasons why Wikipedia Review criticism has also been equivocal on those of us who've used a "screw process, screw consensus" attitude to force our way on BLPs. People here instinctively oppose the thugogracy because it tends to screw BLP victims - the problem is that the only way for the righteous to prevail in a thugocracy is to out thug the masses.

Cavemen rule.

Spot on.

[Milton Roe]

I suspect that's also one of the reasons why Wikipedia Review criticism has also been equivocal on those of us who've used a "screw process, screw consensus" attitude to force our way on BLPs. People here instinctively oppose the thugogracy because it tends to screw BLP victims - the problem is that the only way for the righteous to prevail in a thugocracy is to out thug the masses.

Cavemen rule.

This is also why we've been complaining about the need for Due Process and a Bill of Rights. Without them, even a successful democracy on WP (which we don't have, either) is merely the old classic problem of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

[Doc glasgow]

I suspect that's also one of the reasons why Wikipedia Review criticism has also been equivocal on those of us who've used a "screw process, screw consensus" attitude to force our way on BLPs. People here instinctively oppose the thugogracy because it tends to screw BLP victims - the problem is that the only way for the righteous to prevail in a thugocracy is to out thug the masses.

Cavemen rule.

This is also why we've been complaining about the need for Due Process and a Bill of Rights. Without them, even a successful democracy on WP (which we don't have, either) is merely the old classic problem of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Process is the problem, not the solution, and Bills of Rights can be gamed.

The solution is only to have top-down leadership which enforces a proper ethos, and is willing to sacrifice some ideological necessities ("anyone can edit") to insist on larger ones ("no, we will not let you use us to pursue that vendetta").

Ironically, Wikipedia does now have a fairly well-developed leadership in administrative areas. In administration it accepts that not everyone can get to do everything, and limits certainly rights to those chosen (admin, checkuser, crat, steward, arb) - these people are allowed to make certain decisions without votes and process, and they are accountable to (fairly developed and increasingly transparent) systems; it simply utterly refuses to do this is the policy or (more importantly) content.

What Wikipedia now needs is:
1) A policy creating body
2) Chosen (and scrutinised) uber-editors for BLPs.
3) A final BLP deletion body (with "maintainability" as a consideration)

[Kelly Martin]

Have to disagree with Doc on this one. Process is the solution at this point.

Firm, dedicated dictatorial leadership works when you're dealing with a few hundred, at most a few thousand people. When you get to the size of a small town, though, you have to accept the inefficiencies of deliberative bureaucracy as being overall less harmful than the alternatives.

[Milton Roe]

This is also why we've been complaining about the need for Due Process and a Bill of Rights. Without them, even a successful democracy on WP (which we don't have, either) is merely the old classic problem of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Process is the problem, not the solution, and Bills of Rights can be gamed.

The solution is only to have top-down leadership which enforces a proper ethos, and is willing to sacrifice some ideological necessities ("anyone can edit") to insist on larger ones ("no, we will not let you use us to pursue that vendetta").

Ironically, Wikipedia does now have a fairly well-developed leadership in administrative areas. In administration it accepts that not everyone can get to do everything, and limits certainly rights to those chosen (admin, checkuser, crat, steward, arb) - these people are allowed to make certain decisions without votes and process, and they are accountable to (fairly developed and increasingly transparent) systems; it simply utterly refuses to do this is the policy or (more importantly) content.

Ermmm. It's turtles all the way down. The reason "it" refuses is that the God-King set it up so that it could. With your incorruptable "top-down leadership" you're asking for a philosopher-king, a maximum-leader or junta-of-the-just which enforces fariness and light. And with Wales, you sure didn't get one on first pass. Wups. So, where do we find this incorruptable person, or persons, to install at the top? And ensure that he/they stay there? Back we go to the problem of process.

No matter what you do, it's ugly. It's ugly in the real world, where we had to suffer W. Bush for eight very long, ugly, stupid, vicious, and wasteful years before finally moving toward correction with Obama. And our congress is still full of greedy children, using the emergency to cash in for their pet projects (I'm not sure Obama is immune, either). They aren't perfect, or even close-- just better than Bush was. And the cycle has repeated many times before that. That idea that it's going to magically find some way of improving itself on Wikipedia, where there are far more voter-reponsiblity problems to solve before we even BEGIN, seems to me naive.

What Wikipedia now needs is:
1) A policy creating body
2) Chosen (and scrutinised) uber-editors for BLPs.
3) A final BLP deletion body (with "maintainability" as a consideration)

Chosen HOW? In a way that can't be "gamed" as you call it? Again, this problem hasn't been solved in the real world, even with perfect voter I.D. and perfect rule-representative I.D. So who are YOU going to do it on WP?? If you find a way, you could use it to fix the whole frigging planet. But I'm afraid there's no good way that anyone has so-far found. All we've got is something better than Wikipedia, not something that is anything close to perfect, or even very good.

[Doc glasgow]

Have to disagree with Doc on this one. Process is the solution at this point.

Firm, dedicated dictatorial leadership works when you're dealing with a few hundred, at most a few thousand people. When you get to the size of a small town, though, you have to accept the inefficiencies of deliberative bureaucracy as being overall less harmful than the alternatives.

Yes, and no.

If process is simply a mechanism to allow everyone to have a fair say, then it may tend to produce reasonably stable results at the higher levels. (It is fairly hard for any motivated clique to game an arbcom election. The results may be moronic, but they are systemic not arbitrary.)

However, when it comes down to control of the content of a BLP on a minor sportsman, no "process" will save you from the fact that the only 2 people who happen to care about the bio have personal cause to hate the subject and want to stick it to him, and an infinite amount of patience to do so. Indeed the more process you have, the easier it will be for those motivate people to game it, and to dive off by war of attrition the couple of editors who look in for a minute and think "hey that article sucks a bit".

The only way you can save yourself from that, is to empower someone so that in the 5 minutes before they stop caring they are able to waltz in and say "wow, that sucks, and you're both banned" and then now have to waste time explaining themselves before 12 abuse investigations, and watchlist the article forever.

The root problem with wikipedia is that it tries to produce goods results by treating all editors equally - and expecting everyone to wield power over an article by spending time arguing with all others. We need "content constables" who don't have to do that - because they system assumes that 5 minutes of their time and judgement will be worth more than 500 min of the average motivated user at least 90% of the time.

How you get a leadership like that is another story. Wales is probably as safe a pair of hands in content problems as anyone. But a) he does not upscale b) he can't usually be bothered c) on the occasions he's delegated his judgement has sucked.

What is needed is uber-editors and a process to appoint such people that will ensure anyone aspiring to be one in order to perpetuate their own biases, and hatchet-jobs, will be identified and booted.

[tarantino]

Back to the topic of this thread, here's the list of photos deleted From Commons.

In what must be a coincidence, there was a recent article in Columbia Journalism Review about "Wikinews’ star reporter" David Miller.