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

[Moulton]

I would frankly be astonished if Jimbo ever has an epiphany.

[Emperor]

I'll bet the person most pissed off by all this porn on Wikipedia is User:CG, formerly known as ''Cumguzzler".

If Jimbo has any sense of fairness he should give this individual his real user name back right away.

[tarantino]

Many of the content filtering providers accept submissions from end users. For example at OpenDNS, people submit tags for domains and then everyone else votes if the tags are appropriate or not. At this moment, some of the tags being voted on for commons.wikimedia.org include pornography, sexuality, nudity and tasteless, while for wikipedia.org they're voting on sexuality, nudity and adult themes. All of those tags really do apply to vast amounts of content of both sites. It would be delicious to see WP/commons get increasingly blocked as the result of crowd sourced tagging.

OpenDNS basic is free, and there are advanced plans that run $10 per year per home or $2000+ a year for businesses and larger institutions.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

One has to wonder if it made him think at all ... but I think he got what he wanted, a press release saying "Wikipedia Founder Deletes Massive Amount of Porn".

Like someone said, it did not make the mainstream media, nothing changed, the 6 members of the mob who are 'the consensus' asserted it, the formula did not change.

He was "seen to do something" by both sides. Delete 77 images and renounce founder powers ... it will go down history, and into speaking appointments as an noble act of social responsibility and martyrdom.

[tarantino]

At this moment, some of the tags being voted on for commons.wikimedia.org include pornography, sexuality, nudity and tasteless, while for wikipedia.org they're voting on sexuality, nudity and adult themes.

Wikimedians such as nihiltres, sarekofvulcan and prom3th3an have been voting at OpenDNS for some time. This explains why tags such as sexuality, nudity and adult themes have been voted down for a domain that carries articles such as Tit torture (T-H-L-K-D).

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

commons.wikimedia.org is up for a vote.

http://domain.opendns.com/commons.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia is clear, wikipediareview.com is blocked as a time waster.

As a blog added by tawker and as a forum by nathan who also tagged "priestsrapeboys.com" as a hate site.

Tawker also tagged wikipedia-watch.org Tasteless, Politics and Hate/Discriminationn

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

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?)

Sorry, Greg...I'm afraid it is. Nothing personal but DIE HERETIC!

Really, though, it's all good...H is cool too.
I actually prefer Van Hagar to Van Roth.

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

Hola.
Some days I'd rather listen to the Rutles than the Beatles or Weird Al instead of Nirvana.




As penance, I shall try now to guide this thread back on topic.

Are motives really important?
I'd argue that results are more so and motives of secondary concern.
People rarely admit, or even know, their true motives, aside from the basic, base banal ones (hunger, fear, lust, anger etc).
The more complex motives are far difficult to fathom and do make for interesting speculation.
But in the end they matter most to authors, artists, academics and attorneys than in the big scheme of things.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine): Sun 16th May 2010, 2:41am

[carbuncle]

commons.wikimedia.org is up for a vote.

http://domain.opendns.com/commons.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia is clear, wikipediareview.com is blocked as a time waster.

As a blog added by tawker and as a forum by nathan who also tagged "priestsrapeboys.com" as a hate site.

Tawker also tagged wikipedia-watch.org Tasteless, Politics and Hate/Discriminationn

Note that users of the "domain tagging" service choose which categories of sites are blocked for them. Someone who doesn't use this service -- or doesn't choose to block sites with a particular tag -- will see no difference.

[EricBarbour]

As a blog added by tawker and as a forum by nathan who also tagged "priestsrapeboys.com" as a hate site.
Tawker also tagged wikipedia-watch.org Tasteless, Politics and Hate/Discrimination

You people should be talking about Tawker (T-C-L-K-R-D) more.

Have a look at Tawker's OpenDNS userpage. Tawker is trying to tag any site he doesn't like as "porn" or "tasteless" or anything else that might upset people.

Message to Daniel Brandt: Tawker is trying to stab you in the back. Which is strange, as Tawker was once nominated for a "Straight Shooter" award by this very forum........

[the fieryangel]

As a blog added by tawker and as a forum by nathan who also tagged "priestsrapeboys.com" as a hate site.
Tawker also tagged wikipedia-watch.org Tasteless, Politics and Hate/Discrimination

You people should be talking about Tawker (T-C-L-K-R-D) more.

Have a look at Tawker's OpenDNS userpage. Tawker is trying to tag any site he doesn't like as "porn" or "tasteless" or anything else that might upset people.

Message to Daniel Brandt: Tawker is trying to stab you in the back. Which is strange, as Tawker was once nominated for a "Straight Shooter" award by this very forum........

What?? "Screenshot May be Offensive"?

Tag :
Hate/Discriminatio... added by tawker
Lingerie/Bikini added by tawker ???

Okay, the "hate/discrimination" one is understandable from the point of the WikiKult...but "Ligerie/Bikini"? Daniel, where are you hidding the good stuff?

[Moulton]

The Bikini Babes are in the famous pix of Cap'n Jimbo at the Wheel.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Note that users of the "domain tagging" service choose which categories of sites are blocked for them. Someone who doesn't use this service -- or doesn't choose to block sites with a particular tag -- will see no difference.

Or by general "levels" ... Pornopedia waltzes through the most safe of them with hardly a blush on her face.

From memory, wikipediareview.com gets stumped as a timewaster.

[the fieryangel]

The Bikini Babes are in the famous pix of Cap'n Jimbo at the Wheel.

Yeah, but you can see those in the Sears catalog. That's hardly "adult" material...

[Moulton]

The Bikini Babes are in the famous pix of Cap'n Jimbo at the Wheel.

Yeah, but you can see those in the Sears catalog. That's hardly "adult" material...

Well, I suppose if OpenDNS also tags the Sears catalog the same way, at least they'd be using their curious tagging system consistently.

But why should OpenDNS be any more of a responsibly managed community than Wikipedia?

Digg and Slashdot also have moderation/voting systems that are easily abused. For that matter, Google's ranking system can be manipuated too. Do you recall the Google Bombs for "miserable failure"?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

At school, if it has Wikipedia access, yes, actually I do ... and far beyond Category:Vagina.

I mean, at the Wikipedia, you do not even have to buy a subscription to Suicide Girls and they are far more intensely laid out. Excuse the pun.

I imagine for many here in their day it was line drawings in the Britannica and rude words in the Oxford English but at least the former would have led to the development of some imagination and scientific curiosity and the latter is curt in response.

But why should OpenDNS be any more of a responsibly managed community than Wikipedia?

At first I thought OpenDNS was a wonder but then when I found all the correlations to the Wikipedia Question, I became despondent. Definitely more of the same with the very same people, and well spotted Tartino.

I believe there is a very good and pure motive to wanting take porn off the Wikipedia for all the reasons stated above.

501 c and their supporters are not afforded benefits within society in order to host tug material.

[Milton Roe]

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.

One has to wonder if it made him think at all ...

My guess is: no.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

For example at OpenDNS, people submit tags for domains and then everyone else votes if the tags are appropriate or not. At this moment, some of the tags being voted on for commons.wikimedia.org include pornography, sexuality, nudity and tasteless, while for wikipedia.org they're voting on sexuality, nudity and adult themes. All of those tags really do apply to vast amounts of content of both sites. It would be delicious to see WP/commons get increasingly blocked as the result of crowd sourced tagging.

OpenDNS basic is free, and there are advanced plans that run $10 per year per home or $2000+ a year for businesses and larger institutions.

For 'http://domain.opendns.com/wikipedia.org' the Pornography category, added by snowdrift, has been "Rejected". So, it is not pornography, it graphic imagery which is OK.

It would seem OpenDNS admins are out of the same mould, or is that mold, as the Whackopedians for whom "absolutely none" of the hard core photos on Wikipedia are porn.

Querying how, when and why wikipedia.org was rejected as a porn host, or how it could be re-assessed, the best response I could get was

Hello -

Half of the links you sent weren't even Wikipedia pages, the other half were either already taken down (as they violated wikipedias policies) or are illustrating part of a definition - even though they may contain graphic imagery, absolutely none of those links contained pornography.

Furthermore, you have the option to block wikipedia by domain name if you don't want users on your network accessing the site.

The site tags will remain intact as they are.

Marc Mirenzi
OpenDNS Support Lead

----------------------

The examples given were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hodensack_(5).JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_V...s_vifs_-_29.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Felicia_Fox_6.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._in_photography
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...tion_(animated)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Penis


What gets me with these people, and it is typical of the mind set that rules the Wikipedia, is that they can spout absolute lies such as "half were either already taken down" without, seemingly, any sense of self-doubt or recrimination.

No, half have not already taken down.

[thekohser]

What gets me with these people, and it is typical of the mind set that rules the Wikipedia, is that they can spout absolute lies...

On the web, I've found that the prominent use of the word "Open" is a signal for an environment of lies.