Someone Finally asked some Questions I befitting of Controversial answers!, My answers to two recent questions asked of all candidates for the 200 Options

[KevinOKeeffe]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elect..._of_information

Censorship & Suppression of information: "In light of the David Rohde/censorship situation, do you agree with how it was handled, and how should similar decisions be handled in the future?"


I do not agree with with how the David Rohde case was handled. I can understand why it was done, and sympathize with the motive to aid in a sincere effort to protect the lives of Mr. Rohde, and that of his translator, Mr. Ludin, but I never-the-less oppose a deliberate policy to conceal the facts at Wikipedia, or at any of the other Foundation projects. I believe that Wikipedia is what it claims to be ie., an encyclopedia, and that an encyclopedia can not be used as an instrument for the deliberate concealment of factual knowledge, and long remain an encyclopedia in any meaningful sense.

"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, 3rd President of the United States (1801-1809)

Furthermore, I am bothered by the notion that through assisting Mr. Rohde and Mr. Ludin, Wikipedia was, in effect, working to undermine the Taliban. I do not believe that any project associated with the WikiMedia Foundation should be in the business of deliberately aiding or undermining per se, the interests of various global, national, regional, and local political factions (including nation-states, private organizations deemed to be criminal and/or terrorist in nature, etc.) Through its role in the David Rohde affair, Wikipedia (and by extension, the Foundation as a whole) has essentially allied itself with the Anglo-American Globalist elite, and against the transnational Islamist insurgency which is presently arrayed against that elite. While I know that sounds dramatic, it is objectively accurate, and I do not think that is a course we should have embarked upon.

In the article to which I link below, New York University professor Joseph M. Reagle writes "the idea of a pure openness...is a naïve one."

I do not agree.

* LINK to New York Times article on the David Rohde affair


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elect..._content_on_WMF

Sexual content on WMF: "The Wikimedia Foundation hosts explicit media depicting various sexual activity. This area is growing steadily, and now contains examples across a wide spectrum, from bog standard nudity, through various fetishistic media, to full sexual activity including 'cum shots' and penetration. Other large commercial sites, such as Google Images, and Flickr, carry similar material, however the practice seems to be to use a 'safe search' option to allow browsers to 'opt in' to view such material. It remains an open question as to the desirability and utility of explicit freely licensed material on a project with no child safety measures or options. From my perspective, this is an area where the WMF can provide sensible leadership, direction and ultimately software development / support - do you agree?"

While I am not familiar with sexually explicit depictions on other Foundation projects, I believe that there presently exists a severe over-representation of human sexuality-themed material at Wikipedia. And as the questioner suggests, this is not helpful in the creation of a serious and well-regarded encyclopedia. I'm just going to come right out and say what I suspect many people already know, which is that even in the year 2009, the internet is disproportionately populated by youthful and/or socially maladjusted males who, due to their lack of experience in the world of adult sexual behavior, are often rather preoccupied with the topic. This is particularly true within the relatively minuscule subset of internet users who choose to become involved in the somewhat esoteric practice of editing Wikipedia. As a married father, with all that is implied by such a status, I believe Wikipedia, and quite probably the Foundation's other projects, are sorely in need of some adult supervision. It is time we told the kiddies & other (unwilling) chronic celibates "No, you can't post a photograph of a human penis engaged in the act of ejaculation to an article at this site. No, we don't need several hundred (if not over a thousand) articles detailing the lives and times of pornographic actors & actresses. This is an encyclopedia, and if you wish to peruse such material, I suggest you find a porn site."

With that said, I do believe that some photos depicting human nudity (including genitalia) have a valid, medical or otherwise educational, scientific, or artistic purpose at this site. Articles on some sexually transmitted diseases, or on human childbirth, are two very good examples of where this would tend to be the case. Yet I find it almost impossible to imagine how photographic depictions of "cum shots" and "penetration" could ever be permitted to find a home at this site.

* LINK to a non-photographic image depicting both ejaculation and penetration in a manner that is both educational, and inoffensive

This post has been edited by KevinOKeeffe: Sat 25th July 2009, 10:36pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Bad reply, Kev. You come across as too serious. You need to make campaign promises with stuff that matters: video games, skanks and booze. Play up those angles and you'll have my votes!

[KevinOKeeffe]

Bad reply, Kev. You come across as too serious. You need to make campaign promises with stuff that matters: video games, skanks and booze. Play up those angles and you'll have my votes!

Bring unto me my riding crop. This nag needs a lesson, I'm afraid.

[Peter Damian]

While I am not familiar with sexually explicit depictions on other Foundation projects, I believe that there presently exists a severe over-representation of human sexuality-themed material at Wikipedia. And as the questioner suggests, this is not helpful in the creation of a serious and well-regarded encyclopedia. I'm just going to come right out and say what I suspect many people already know, which is that even in the year 2009, the internet is disproportionately populated by youthful and/or socially maladjusted males who, due to their lack of experience in the world of adult sexual behavior, are often rather preoccupied with the topic. This is particularly true within the relatively minuscule subset of internet users who choose to become involved in the somewhat esoteric practice of editing Wikipedia. As a married father, with all that is implied by such a status, I believe Wikipedia, and quite probably the Foundation's other projects, are sorely in need of some adult supervision. It is time we told the kiddies & other (unwilling) chronic celibates "No, you can't post a photograph of a human penis engaged in the act of ejaculation to an article at this site. No, we don't need several hundred (if not over a thousand) articles detailing the lives and times of pornographic actors & actresses. This is an encyclopedia, and if you wish to peruse such material, I suggest you find a porn site."

It's about time someone said this.

Bad reply, Kev. You come across as too serious. You need to make campaign promises with stuff that matters: video games, skanks and booze. Play up those angles and you'll have my votes!

Youthful and/or socially maladjusted male horse?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 27th July 2009, 9:06am

[A Horse With No Name]

Youthful and/or socially maladjusted male horse?

Petey, baby, ya gotta play to your audience. For every brain-boy like Malleus, there are thousands of ADD/OCD kiddies who are on Wikipedia for the jokes and drama. Hit the lowest common denominator and you hit bullseye.