2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, Robert Harris introduces himself and opens a forum for discussion Options

[Emperor]

What Ottava may be suggesting here is that certain users, particularly those who may not be very popular with the admins, like to involve themselves in porn-related discussions while logged out so that their usernames don't appear in the contribution histories, and therefore the various offsite statistical reports that summarize a person's "editing tendencies." But they don't want to be treated as "mere AnonIP's" in the discussions, so they go back and "sign" the AnonIP talk page entries (still with the IP address), just to avoid accusations of "sock puppetry" - but also knowing that the talk pages themselves are eventually going to be archived, and in 6 months nobody on Wikipedia is going to remember any of this ever happened.

If that's what he's on about, I would have to agree with him. You can sort of understand why people do it, but it's still sneaky, if not simply dishonest.

This is the kind of advanced stuff we should be teaching in the Annex.

[thekohser]

Did anyone notice that the Harris family has posted the third and final section. of their Report on Naughty Bits?

It's possible that others have tried to post this link already, but disabled with yawning, fell into a deep and fast sleep before actually getting the post pushed onto the appropriate threa

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Did anyone notice that the Harris family has posted the third and final section. of their Report on Naughty Bits?

I guess that is what you call "Harris Tweed*".

Call me a stickler for form and ethics but I still don't understand why Dory Harris is getting a credit. Apart form the usual nepotism we have come to expect. I mean, she was not commissioned to do it, was she? That is not how 'graduate assistants' or interns are usually credited.


A mid-point is not a balance in a highly exaggerated and extremely imbalance product and community such as the Wikipedia.

Although I appreciate some of the cultural notes, there is little at the deeply personal and influential level which the Pornopedia affect the vulnerable and impressionable, e.g. pre-teen boys seeing images of cock and ball torture or 'cream pie' anal sex during furtive late night spy sessions.

And to think I spent my years looking at children's comics under the bedspreads with a torch.

Remind of what specialism or experience with child psychology Robert and Dory Harris have?


*tweed; a rough, unfinished woollen fabric, of a soft, open, flexible texture.

[thekohser]

If anyone is wondering how specifically they will kill the Harris initiative, the answer is now told. The WMF will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion by:

1. Putting a librarian girl in charge of communicating progress
2. Making sure the board doesn't pass any resolutions related to the Harris recommendations
3. Forming a "working group"
4. Determining if there is consensus on the board regarding this matter

The Board did not pass a resolution on controversial content or take
other action on the suggested recommendations at this meeting.
However, the Board has formed a working group around controversial
content, led by Board members Jan-Bart (as group Chair), Phoebe and
Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to identify next steps.

The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely,
soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a
greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting,
working with the community and finally making a report to the full
Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps,
including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations, which
recommendations (if any) there is consensus to move forward on and
noting what would be required to put them into practice.

Right now the working group is getting Board member feedback to see
what Board consensus exists around the resolutions, and after
finishing this process will probably move on to analysis. We realize
that some of the recommendations are much more controversial than
others, and some are much more technically difficult than others.

[thekohser]

Oh, and mercy me, how did I miss this?

Among the noted visitors to the Wikimedia Foundation office in San Francisco during September were:

* Special Agents from the San Francisco FBI Field Office, Cybersecurity Division (invited brown bag presentation)

[Milton Roe]

Oh, and mercy me, how did I miss this?

Among the noted visitors to the Wikimedia Foundation office in San Francisco during September were:

* Special Agents from the San Francisco FBI Field Office, Cybersecurity Division (invited brown bag presentation)

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh, and mercy me, how did I miss this?

Among the noted visitors to the Wikimedia Foundation office in San Francisco during September were:

• Special Agents from the San Francisco FBI Field Office, Cybersecurity Division (invited brown bag presentation)

Well, we think they were from the FBI, they had really authentic-looking badges and everything.

Jon

[lilburne]

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

I think it means they got given a donut and a burger from MacDonalds.

[Jon Awbrey]

Anyone who has ever survived a few weeks of serving on their junior high school student council recognizes the kind of pseudo-consultation process that is involved here.

But I'm guessing most Wikipediots haven't got as far as junior high school yet …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

I think it means they got given a donut and a burger from MacDonalds.

Oh, geez, you mean they confused FBI agents for cops?

[Anonymous editor]

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

I think it means they got given a donut and a burger from MacDonalds.

Does this "MacDonalds" serve good food?

[Milton Roe]

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

I think it means they got given a donut and a burger from MacDonalds.

Does this "MacDonalds" serve good food?

Troll.

[Emperor]

This board is a bunch of clowns. Any vote to delay or put off a decision on this is a vote to continue to make pornography available to children for the indefinite future.

I really think the police should get involved at this point, and every single board member should have to explain why they are marketing and providing this this material free of charge to children.

Especially enlightening is the anachronistic blather about how we'll help India by providing sex ed materials to their children. This is the mindset of these people. They know better, and they're going to tell us all.

At least Jimbo took something of a stand on this.

[Anonymous editor]

Brown bag? That doesn't make any sense. It has to have read "...(invited brown NOSE presentation)"

I think it means they got given a donut and a burger from MacDonalds.

Does this "MacDonalds" serve good food?

Troll.

That doesn't answer my question.

[HRIP7]

If anyone is wondering how specifically they will kill the Harris initiative, the answer is now told. The WMF will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion by:

1. Putting a librarian girl in charge of communicating progress
2. Making sure the board doesn't pass any resolutions related to the Harris recommendations
3. Forming a "working group"
4. Determining if there is consensus on the board regarding this matter

The Board did not pass a resolution on controversial content or take
other action on the suggested recommendations at this meeting.
However, the Board has formed a working group around controversial
content, led by Board members Jan-Bart (as group Chair), Phoebe and
Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to identify next steps.

The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely,
soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a
greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting,
working with the community and finally making a report to the full
Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps,
including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations, which
recommendations (if any) there is consensus to move forward on and
noting what would be required to put them into practice.

Right now the working group is getting Board member feedback to see
what Board consensus exists around the resolutions, and after
finishing this process will probably move on to analysis. We realize
that some of the recommendations are much more controversial than
others, and some are much more technically difficult than others.

Perhaps we should take bets.

Much though I'd like to believe otherwise, if I had to bet my house, I'd go with Greg on this.

[GlassBeadGame]

Does this "MacDonalds" serve good food?

The deep fried thistles are excellent.

[thekohser]

...if I had to bet my house, I'd go with Greg on this.

You don't know how much I appreciate comments like that.

[Selina]

This isn't a reply to any particular reply, just to thread in general, and the various threads floating around WR attacking Wikipedia over being uncensored, when there's plenty more deserving stuff to point at (I haven't bothered to reply to them before I think, I just gave up figuring some people will always be very authoritarian no matter what you do, but I thought someone should say something...):


Umm, I LIKED having uncensored internet when I was young. I think most people who think that children need to be "protected" from reading material (rather than say people like paedophiles which are the REAL problem on places like Wikipeda) seem to have convinced themselves that what they think young people SHOULD read about is what is "safe".

Reading material, or even pictures or videos, is not inherently harmful... I don't know when if ever some people will be able to understand that, it doesn't help that religious morality that people should be "protected" from sex is mixed into it so often, masquerading as caring for growing people when it's really just trying to keep them blinkered and ignorant so they are more easily controllable.

E.g. They think anyone they class as a child (which seems to vary hugely, for example saying that someone who is 14 and had sex should not be able to read any story that happens to have a bit of sex in it, or even saying the same about 16 year olds)

It seems to nearly always be people that are old enough to not remember when they were young, and hold a very dismissive attitude of young people as a way of feeling superior - to make up for the fact that they are bitter and past it I guess, just pure evil green jealousy.

I remember having to borrow my mum's library card when I was at school because all the good novels needed an adult card to take out.

At school later all the stories with anything vaguely mature in them had been put in the 6th formers section.

And the internet was censored... Now they even do this in public libraries in the UK. E.g. for people that can't afford a computer (granted not that many these days, but the principle), they are cut entirely off from anything that the local 50-year-old-virgin pencil-pushers deem "unsuitable".



I grew up on mostly uncensored internet thankfully and you know what? I'm glad for it, I would be a hell of a lot less educated if I hadn't had it, hell WR wouldn't exist cos none of the so called adults at the time had a clue how to set up a website and forum. Also just thought along the same lines, WR sprang up as a result of censorship of any dissent on Wikipedia don't forget, so does anyone *really* think that removing anything from Wikipedia would remove it from the internet?

There are some very boring places in the UK, well, pretty much everywhere outside of London which is why everyone goes now
Censored internet would have been total chavocalypse growing up... Blandness event horizon.



This is a little bit of devil's advocate since there are some stuff that should be censored, I agree, but the general gist I have seen before seems to be very much in support of censorship, so yeah.

[Emperor]

Reading material, or even pictures or videos, is not inherently harmful...

What are you doing here, if you don't think ideas have any power?

[Selina]

Oh a lazy one-liner, ok, I suppose it saves time since you seemed to miss the point completely anyway: Of course, but knowing about the outside world outside what is deemed normal does not HURT anyone (unless they have mental issues), in fact having an open mind makes people LESS inclined to look down on anyone, be bigoted etc.