Image hiding feature on hold ..., Subject to a revote, but no date set ... Options

[HRIP7]

The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold. WMF secretary Phoebe Ayers has advised that

Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. ... It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[EricBarbour]

The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

The fact that the thread came to a screeching halt, and others changed the subject on the list,
ought to tell you something. Never have I seen so many allegedly-"smart" people so unwilling to
confront a basic problem that is well within their abilities.

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

[HRIP7]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

[dogbiscuit]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

Given that there is precious little discussion actually needed, it is inconceivable that the Board couldn't find the time if they had any real interest.

It strikes me that this is the same as the flagged revisions, create a proposal, do enough to make publicity on it, leave those proposals in the public domain so that if challenged in the real world they can say it is being done, while not actually caring.

There is another prediction of the critics that has come rapidly true too. WMF is not really interested in the project, they have a wonderful money grabbing machine and now the money is more important than the project. Given that the WMF is awash with funds, it is bizarre to suggest that the concerns on money are so all-consuming that the board cannot function effectively on any other topic.

I would also comment that Peter's pressing of Wiki UK Ltd seems to have been very successful. Fae has absolutely understood that Wiki UK Ltd is genuinely at risk from these shenanigans, and while we might question his motives, he has been making several moves that are in line with taking the project in a better direction, and is learning that Wikipedia is no more his friend than the vipers' nest he perceives WR to be. Rather like BLP, improvement can be made and although the results aren't perfect, it is possible to make improvements elsewhere over time if the leadership is there. The fundamental issue with Wiki UK Ltd is that they had to show that the project had proper controls or else they could not demonstrate an exclusively charitable purpose of the charity. The fact that we have clear evidence of rejection of controls is very helpful to the de-registering of Wiki UK Ltd as a charity - if the WMF are not prepared to control the project, then Wiki UK Ltd cannot claim to be supporting an appropriate clause. The Charity Commission are currently claiming there is a subtle difference between being satisfied for the creation of a charity and the situation once it is up, but it all starts to look like it is valid to claim that the CC were mislead as to the practicality of the controls on the project.

Similarly, the fund-raising was supposed to be "keep the servers running" but what is clear is that the interests of WMF are unrelated to the project these days, they have a heap of money that they don't know what to do with. They raised money under false pretences, and they'll have to explain that to the UK authorities.

[thekohser]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

Thanks, guys!

[SB_Johnny]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

[lilburne]

scuppered

[dogbiscuit]

scuppered

And Jimbo's talk page is full of "supervise your children properly, it's not our problem." or "porn is good for you". It is amazing how Wikipedia keeps proving its critics right and yet the real world falls for Jimbo's spin. Jimbo's problem is that you can only say "We are doing something about it" for so long before eventually even the public will twig that they've been had - and the press really hate being embarrassed by falling for the spin and they'll do him over when they see the opportunity for the biggest fall.

Charity leeching money from the public for who knows what + porn site + defamation + misleading politicians = heading for a big fall.

WMF are in danger of giving Fox News a good name.

[thekohser]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

[dogbiscuit]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

thank you, I missed it first time around.

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

Greg pretty much nailed the big picture - even if the details weren't 100% prescient;"... will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion" [through bureaucratic means.] Then again, he nailed a couple of the details too.

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[lilburne]

toothbrush is nothing try forefinger.

[HRIP7]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes, that was the toothbrush thing. Fæ, to his credit, was trying to fix it. An important thing to note here is that the search results in Wikipedia are much the same as those in Commons. And seeing these search results under the Wikipedia logo is perhaps even more astonishing.

For example, Natka from the Stop Pornography on Wikipedia Facebook page just added the search term "human" to the Meta page listing all these "unusual" Commons search results (a page that could do with expansion).

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

By the way, I think that Facebook page could prove really useful. The Fox reporter who wrote the recent article showed up there a few days before his piece appeared. Facebook and Twitter are generally a much more effective medium for campaigning than a closed and somewhat insular site like WR. Natka is doing a really good job over there, and WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

[thekohser]

...WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

Selina's covering that duty now.

[HRIP7]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

[thekohser]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

[HRIP7]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

I take your word for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

On a more positive note, I note that it is currently safe again to do a Multimedia search for "tolling bells" in Commons or Wikipedia. File history. The rename was not popular at first though, judging by comments in the deletion discussion.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[dogbiscuit]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

I take your word for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

On a more positive note, I note that is currently safe again to do a Multimedia search for "tolling bells" in Commons or Wikipedia. File history. The rename is not popular though, judging by comments in the deletion discussion.

Cream pie is entirely wholesome now, it appears. (I only mention it so that someone gets over-excited at Wikipedia and "puts it right" again.

[Michaeldsuarez]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: