Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: privatemusings

so it falls to me to periodically review the contents of such important commons libraries as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellatio - and not having banged my head against a wall for a while, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#continued_growth_in_sexually_explicit_images.

same old same old, I'm afraid - but the size of the library of freely licensed blowjob pics grows ever larger (as do the various, um.. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Clitoral_Hood_piercings which may be more your cup of tea?)

I'm hesitant to say this, but I had some interesting legal advice on this stuff recently, and intend to try to pursue a sensible conversation with the foundation about this.....

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, so long as politeness is maintained, what can the matter be? A strong supporter of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, CiviliNation believes that free speech is enhanced through civil dialog and a rational exchange of information and ideas. By fostering an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies, the core ideals of democracy are upheld.

"I say, Andrea, do you suppose I might trouble you for a blow-job?"
"Since you ask nicely, Jimmy, I believe you might."
"That is immensely decent of you."

[...]

"Thank you for coming."
"On the contrary, thank you for having me."

Posted by: the_undertow

Your intentions are correct, however you are assuming a level playing field. Unfortunately, I embody WP. I am unbending, unrelenting, and yet I realize that I am generally not on the right side of the coin.

No person in their right mind would freely volunteer their time at a soup-kitchen, knowing that their managers will be waving a gun in their face, constantly telling them that "You're doing it wrong."

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BW_oral_sex.png is the kind of intelligence they are encouraging ...

Try and remove it and you will probably get banned.

Posted by: Tarc

Damn work filters. Guess the BJ-browsing will have to wait a bit.

Posted by: thekohser

Best post thus far in 2010.

I think any of the people upset with the how the images on Commons might be viewed by pre-teens and other such youngsters should just sit their http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blonde_teenie_sucking.jpg.

Posted by: thekohser

Privatemusings and others, I hope you will take some time to consider the thoughts that I've laid out on Yahoo! Answers, and monitor the responses to these.

The http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atil1UG0BC5Y8AtOnA6f_kXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100107080353AAPNoGC:
At what age does the Wikipedia article and photo about Hafada piercing become appropriate?

And, especially, the http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atil1UG0BC5Y8AtOnA6f_kXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100108094156AAU3PAJ:
Is Wikipedia appropriate for 10-year-olds?

Posted by: tarantino

A http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=upload&user=Max+Rebo+Band wonders on the http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=33943404#Age_verification if it might be a good idea if they expanded OTRS to include age verification.

He's told "I really don't think this is something the OTRS should be getting involved in" and "please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate already and changes would - at the very least temporarily - decrease this".

Posted by: White Knight

When I was 13 years old, I would have loved Wikipedia for its porn database. Back in those days I had to work for my damn porno. I had to time it just right so I had enough time to dial-up my 56k connection, find some decent pics, and get rid of all the evidence before my parents got back. Now kids gets it handed to them on a silver wiki-platter. Where's the sense of accomplishment in that?

Posted by: JohnA

An "encyclopedia" that does not distinguish between a child and an adult and has no idea of the notion of consent is a menace to society.

For those who haven't seen the link http://www.flickr.com/photos/38547171@N02/3577786838/

1. You have to login to yahoo.com and also consent to see the images
2. It shows pictures of oral sex (both F/M and M/M), BDSM, cross-dressing and humiliation

For Wikipedia to incorporate those images is disgraceful - there is no informed consent as to who sees those images.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Ah, but that's because you hadn't heard of Bomis had you? It was all served up by uncle Jimmy on a patter even back then, if only you'd asked.




And interestingly, Uncle Jimmy has http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bomis.com.

We're sorry, access to http://www.bomis.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

Posted by: tarantino

A couple of the photos that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Max_Rebo_Band transferred from flickr to commons are of this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sapphic_Love_2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sapphic_Love_1.jpg. Though her body brings back memories of high school, she must be a skinny adult because as http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&diff=33762462&oldid=33762314, "please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate".

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

It really is more just confirmation that the Pee-dia is a menace to society. This is a perfect example where Gel Braclets very much are something that would entice a child and even within the article ones gets ...

with helpful links to fellating etc.

It is just porn fantasy.

10 year old ... computer ... daddy, what is fellating? ... click link to an extensively illustrated page.

Posted by: thekohser

Not only that, but -- as usual -- Wikipedia can't even get its basic "facts" right. There is a distinct difference between the silicone gel bracelets (for "awareness" causes) and the flimsy jelly bracelets that Madonna wore in the 80's and are associated with this mythic sexual permissiveness game.

Wikipedia is so stupid, on so many levels.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

You young whippersnappers! Back in my day, we had to cut down trees in order to see published pornography. And it was a communal experience -- a bunch of boys gathered around Mr. Herner or Mr. Flynt's magical magazines, sharing the excitement of seeing naughty bits of business on display!

Strangely, I recall a day when I was a teenage summer volunteer at a local senior citizens' center. Another teen volunteer brought Hustler to the center, hidden in a copy of the New York Post. Some elderly lady walked by, saw the newspaper, picked it up and announced, "I am borrowing this newspaper, okay?" The kid who brought in the newspaper quickly screamed "No!" while grabbing it from the old gal. As he ran away, clutching the publications, the poor lady looked around totally confused.

Posted by: privatemusings

well, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=33968683&oldid=33964856 - apparently the 'page views' tool shows that the http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top are sexually explicit.... I think this could get interesting.....

Posted by: EricBarbour

Greg, I love it when you troll Yahoo Answers. That place is such a mess, and it seems that
the same Jimbo-Aid drinkers always end up attacking you, for criticizing the Mighty Wiki.

Is there some kind of seekrit agreement that WP fans must sit and watch Yahoo Answers,
in order to attack Greg Kohs whenever he pops up? Who is "GrimJack" anyway?
Perhaps he's someone we know well from WP?....

I also love some of the crazier questions. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvseuEnev5esc0HXRi15BXYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070919030059AA50zD2 is quite amusing, esp. since Blnguyen pops up.

Mark my words, if the United States ever enacts an overarching system of censorship for
the public internet, Wikimedia's porn photos will be brought up in Congress as an example.

No kidding. Go and post THAT on Yahoo Answers and see what happens....

Isnt it interesting, that the list includes a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:63423main_wiggles_wave_flip_h.jpg of the Aussie kids-show group
the Wiggles. Surrounding them in the list are things like "Category: female genitalia"
and "Category: Ejaculation".....

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

I think you might just have handed us the smoking gun. Indisputable evidence, if every there was the need for more, to finish off its educational, "child friendly" image.

Take one discussion re deletion and what do you get?

User N, aka Nard the Bard (T-C-L-K-R-D) also has a image of a big wad of marijuana on his user page.

And elsewhere ...

Posted by: carbuncle

What is wrong with the youth of America that this sequence shows up...?
"Sarah Palin seated" tops the others? Unless that image also belongs to the categories that follow it, I think this is a troubling sign...

Posted by: JohnA

Can you tell if this girl is over 18? Because I can't.

I've heard reports of producers of adult movies refuse to use certain girls because although they have identifying information that they are definitely over 18, they look much younger and the producers don't want any trouble with the law.

Quite unlike Wikipedia which has fewer scruples than many adult film makers.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Just noticed this thread. Thanks PM.

Posted by: Somey

Posted by: Trick cyclist

There seems to be a network of alert admins on Flickr. The first comment on that picture is "Hi, I'm an admin for a group called amateur-sex, and we'd love to have this added to the group!" I havent seen whats in the amateur-sex group.

Does anyone know if anyone at Flickr checks if pictures are obscene and need this over-18 protection or indeed if they check whether people in the photos are over 18?

Posted by: thekohser

Thank you, Eric. I do my best -- it's like my civic duty.






Can't we get the Grok machine to re-run this, so the data is not from August 2008?

And, why the intense interest in "detallesanmateos.jpg"?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Indeed, what the hell is "commons.m"? When you start at this url all the page links will point to an unresolvable domain name, but if you remove the ".m", navigation works fine but the traffic statistics are much different, and lower.

Posted by: Krimpet

I suspect that in late August '08, when Palin was still virtually a nobody and Alaska was still a fabled land from a storybook, that image was one of the top Google hits for her name, so on 8/29/08 when you had a flood of people suddenly wondering "who the hell is Sarah Palin?," they all landed on that page from Google. Hence why that image had http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/200808/Image:Sarah_Palin_seated.jpg on that day.

Why http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3A63423main_wiggles_wave_flip_h.jpg is #26 - just beating out "Oral sex" - is a bit more befuddling, though.

Posted by: White Knight

I'm seriously considering sending a letter to my representative conveying my concerns about how Wikipedia doesn't keep sufficient records of the age of the people in the nude photos there, and also my concerns about how easy it is for children to accidentally access pornography on Wikipedia. Although the Wikipedia admins may scream "WP:NOTCENSORED!" I have a feeling that King Jimbo would quickly cave in if the federal government actually started looking into Wikipedia's compliance with the law. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia hasn't faced any significant legal or governmental challenges as yet.

I need your help though. I don't know enough about the inner workings of Wikipedia to write an intelligent letter, so if you guys could help me figure out what evidence I should include, and some good points to make in the letter, it would be very beneficial. Not to mention that if you feel motivated to write a letter to your senator or representative, we could all use the same one.

Awaiting your responses,
WK

Posted by: wikademia.org

it seems something like that will have to happen eventually... also maybe the appropriate gov entity will start to examine the early connections between Wikia and Wikipedia.. especially if Wikia has continued "success"

Posted by: thekohser

Whitey, it sounds like a job that a collaborative wiki could help facilitate. Why don't you get a coat-rack skeleton of a letter started on Encyc, Wikidemia, Wikipedia Review, or Google Knol, then point us to it, and perhaps we could whip up something really snazzy. You know me, I like the idea of letters to Congress.

Posted by: privatemusings

re : the letter writing - I tend to agree, although I'm an absolutely incurable optimist, so would also support raising this directly with the foundation at the same time.

The legal stuff I mentioned obliquely in my post before relates to both 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act' stuff and legal issues around facilitating free access to rather a lot of very explicit material - the high page view stat.s for explicit material on commons is rather an important part of this jigsaw, I reckon.

Quick word on that too - I noticed the 'm' in the page view tool too, and wondered if it relates to 'mobile' or something? Further, if you go to the http://stats.grok.se/, it allows you to select 'commons' and then go month by month on individual categories / images etc. - it's the 'top' button which seems to refer back to August 08 figures no matter what.

I'll probably send a letter in my own name, to the Australian authorities by April / May if we just can't get any traction for progress from the foundation end, and would be up for synchronising / making a combined effort. For what it's worth also, I believe there's a good chance of some media coverage on this one too.....

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

I forked this topic with my own thoughts and a nice new eye catching title ... http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28142.

The documentation of the porn is a dirty job for 'someones' to do but it will very much help those of us who feel strongly enough to take action on this.

Again, I think this is where collating archives of the Pee-dia over months are going to be helpful in establishing trends and players.

It would be futile on the scale of the Sorcerer Apprentice's just to "clean up" the Wiki, rather than aim for reform, because we know the same shit from the same arseholes - or individuals going through the arsehole phase - will merely return later ... unless serious reform is enabled.

Why should the rest of society ... the rest of "the community" ... the next generation of kids being enculted into Uncle Jimbo's Plaything ... pay for that?

Posted by: White Knight

Sounds good. Rudd already banned half of the internet. What's one more website to the Great Firewall of Australia?

Posted by: Milton Roe

How is it that the great country of giant knives and crocodiles, built by former criminals and surrounded by wild bush frontiers--- seems presently to be run entirely by maiden-aunts?

Got to be a story, there. Perhaps some juice is Oz plants that makes the testicles shrink?

Posted by: privatemusings

* ps. - links below are very much 'not safe for work' *

so, partly inspired by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6200hsy_vGU by gallant wikipedia reviewers, I thought it might be interesting to make a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n - sort of the equivalent of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex.

My plan (ok, not really a plan, but my 'I scratched my head for 20 seconds and came up with this thing....) is to try and get a bit of feedback, probably write and record a better script, and then try and solicit some reactions / feedback from a bit of a wider field.

It's a work in progress, and I have a few other ideas, about which more anon.....

Posted by: Somey

Eeek. Well, the first thing I would suggest (though it's a bit more work) would be to float the URL of each image directly in front, to make the point that you're not just showing porn imagery from, like, wherever.

Your script is fine, though it might help to have some recorded statements by other people spliced in, just for good measure. (Maybe I could even record one - I got a new microphone recently, and it sounds much better! )

Posted by: privatemusings

that's a good idea - and I don't think it's very hard? (I'm just using 'picasa' to make the video) - for the extra stupid, I'll probably add a 'these are actual images from wikimedia projects' caption too?



sounds great :-) - one other idea I've had is to make 5 or 6 short vid.s and then release them once every couple of weeks - things like some screen grab.s of previous discussions (there's been some spectacular point-missing on noticeboards in the past!) - and maybe quotes from jimmy etc. - there's probably also some audio from the wikivoices chat that can be used too?

If you're up for making a 30 sec. statement (or hey, go the full castro, and we'll extend to a couple of hours, right?!) that'd be great - same goes for anyone else reading this - reply to this thread to indicate interest, if that's cool...

Posted by: privatemusings

I http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056599.html about this, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=337538133&oldid=337533185 too - just for the record.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Take some pageshots of the Wikipedia images before they are removed

http://www.webcitation.org/

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Excellent video, though it put me off me cornflakes.

Very nice, low key voiceover. Put in the references to Wikipedia and then get people to forward to their senators???

Posted by: thekohser

My key recommendations would be to point out the "most visited pages" list, to demonstrate that Wikipedia is, in a way, primarily acting as a sex- and porn-related web portal. And then to remind the viewer that Wikipedia's governing foundation captured over $7 million in 2009, mostly tax-advantaged contributions. Thus, American taxpayers can catch a break on their personal income tax return by subsidizing an Internet porn portal.

That should get more than a few Republicans fired up.

Posted by: Tarc

Your name is fitting, but despite sticking up for the girls on teh internets, http://encyclopediadramatica.com/White_knighting

Posted by: Somey

I've noticed that too - no matter what you do on the internet as an anonymous persona with no apparent connection to your actual identity, girls continue to make all sorts of unreasonable demands - like insisting you have a home, or a job, or a car that actually runs, or a (relatively) clean police record. Just having two dozen maxed-out credit cards and taking a shower on occasion isn't enough.

I guess I'll never really figure out the opposite sex...

Posted by: Milton Roe

LOL, that was a funny article. However, it missed one of the main reasons why no internet chicks will sleep with you, which is that there are only a handful of internet chicks to start with-- certainly not enough to go around, even if they were inclined, which they aren't. They're all out in the "real world" looking for "real men" and complaing that there aren't any....

We're here, we're here! Down in the basement!

Having watched many a typical "girl-talk" session from afar, in somewhat the manner of watching anthills and beehives, I see that they are very ADHD, with uncompleted sentences stomped on by other uncompleted sentences, emotional voice ranges which are right out of Italian opera, much gesticulating, and a lot of passing of information far too personal for public fora. I have concluded that the srs lack of gilz on teh interwebs is largely due to lack of com bandwidth when just typing. Even if you add emoticons.

(Which WP mostly doesn't have, which partly explains where there are even fewer females on WP).

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Boy, I just love the smell of 'more than a few Republicans getting fired up' in the morning ...

Posted by: White Knight

Even if we do get Wikipedia to clean up the porn, there are still going to be many more problems to fix, but at least this is a step in the right direction. I'll try to write a letter template sometime soon, which I'll then post here.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

For me, it is not so much about the porn per se but the Child Protection angle ... although the tax dollars angle is a very good one.

Basically, the strategy would have to be about putting into place sufficient obstacles and encumbrances to create an environment that the proponents of all the porn and abuse will dislike. Hopefully, they will change or clear out.

Clear age limitations and click through parental guidance notices etc will do a lot to kill off this aspect of the Wikipedia.

For those of you that want to destroy the Wikipedia, and I do not count myself amongst you, think of the possibilities of all this and get out of your armchairs.

What you should be looking at is re-marketing the Wikipeda as a pornography host that encourages children to act as unpaid serfs alongside dedicated and even self-identified pedophiles (boy lovers), bestiality freaks, sexual exhibitionists, extreme sexual activists, and proponents of the hard core pornography industry ... as we have documented.

Wikipeda equals pornography with sufficient servings of fancruft to lure children in.

• Who is going to get into the pedophilia, bestiality and posting exhibitionist stuff ... with their real name on it? A very few. Ultimately, the way to fix things is to require authenticated membership, and real names, requiring a small credit card payment just like Paypal does. Shine a light into all the dark, murky corners.

• No more anonymous contributions. No more kids spending all day and night waxing Uncle Jimbo's Plaything. How many so-called 'Libertarian' contributors are you going to lose by doing so ... (Infringing on their "right to privacy", as they trash others privacy via BLP etc).

Does it need spelling out? Given our readership, I would hate to give the game away.

Bear in mind a fairly report entitled "The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet" from Third Way (a Democratic think tank) stated that the largest group of consumers of Internet porn are children ages 12 to 17, with the average age of first exposure being 11. Prime Wikipedia target audience. State Law is 18 or 21.

I do not know the current state of play but they have downloads (links follow), The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet and http://content.thirdway.org/publications/19/Third_Way_Memo_-_Taking_On_The_Internet_Porn_Industry_-_Fighting_On_The_Side_of_Families_With_Children.pdf. IN Australia, it is the Australian Labor Party whose buttons you should be pushing.

Thanks. Great. I imagine a template could also be bent to fit cultists (aim at orthodox religious groups), nationalists (aim for embassies and cause a few international stinks) and some of the other extremists. Can anyone else suggest what else needs dragged into this?

It is politics ... "the squeaky wheel gets oiled" so crank up the volume.

Posted by: MZMcBride

I prefer marching penguins.

Posted by: thekohser

Privatemusings, are you just trying to "http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056618.html"?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

"No problem here" ... (I thought the video was very composed and very intelligent about what it said ... not a "moral panic" at all). OK, let's do it.

Gerard's point is insane ... most of the pornography is not used in any article. It has no context. It is exhibitionists exposing themselves in public and sexual extremists pushing their agenda into the consciousness of the young. Is he saying the material has no sexual focus!?!

I had a brief read over the policy documents linked to above. Interesting read.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Posted by: thekohser

Privatemusings, your video is really not complete without a http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/, with you reading down the Top 25, slowly and deliberately...

Posted by: privatemusings

that's a great link, Greg... the 2nd draft (with extra moral panic!) might get done this morning (next 5 hours or so) - the foundation thread is interesting reading, with good points being made by http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056633.html and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056631.html - if I get something together, I'll probably respond everywhere after that :-)

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Actually, correction Greg: keep reading down the Top 100.

Posted by: privatemusings

http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/User%3APrivatemusings/WikiPr0n in a couple of days!

dunno if that's good or bad on reflection, but the next one had to wait this morning for coffee and profit. Now it's a choice between editing porn clips, and a swim in the ocean followed by a beer.....

sad thing is, the porn clips might just edge it!

Posted by: Lar

It seems so obvious to me that there ought to be a system to collect model releases and assertions/proofs of being not underage. It doesn't have to be air tight, but it ought to be at least as good as what we use for collecting copyright. Or better, since we're dealing with actual people here who can be harmed.

Bravo, PM, for bringing this up again.

Posted by: White Knight

Here is a rough draft of the form letter we should use. As I said before, I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia or its legal status as a non-profit organization, so please add more details.

Dear [Congressman, Senator, MP,] [Name],
I am writing to you today regarding a serious threat to child safety on the website www.wikipedia.com. Wikipedia is an extremely popular source of information for people of all ages, including children, yet the site contains a large number of explicit images with no safeguards to ensure children do not access them. For instance, a young girl searching for information about ear piercings may stumble across the Wikipedia page for clitoral piercings, which is linked to the general “piercings” page and contains a graphic image of a woman’s vagina. Not only are these images easy to access with no warning that the page contains explicit imagery, but many of the sexually explicit pictures on Wikipedia are submitted by Wikipedia editors with no verification of the editor’s age, thus there may in fact be child pornography on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia receives tax dollars, I feel that they should be held to a higher standard and should be required to do more to protect children.
[Insert evidence here]

Your constituent,
[your name here]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris_piercing

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I'd change a few things - it does not receive tax dollars (something of an Americanism anyhow), it receives tax relief due to its charitable status.

It needs to explain that there is a governing organisation - WMF - to which these issues have been highlighted, but they hide behind American Government legislation to claim that they are not at fault.

There is a better list of articles - I think the fact that an article on charity donation bangles spends so much time on sex games is far more interesting (and is easier for the receiver to deal with). The point is to say that it is not just about explicit pictures, but explicit text interlaced through the whole article - it simply is not possible to know on selecting a page whether you are going to be deluged with the thoughts of some editor's view of the subject in, ahem, popular culture.

I thought PM's video was really powerful, but needs some very careful wording before I could put it forward to my MP who I meet on occasion - and who is likely to be a cabinet member from May, assuming the Conservatives come to power. In the UK, that is better directed at the organisation who had their skulls danced on, they will be quite up for a bit of revenge. I think on that point, in the UK we need to tread carefully as I believe it is illegal to have pornographic images that appear to be of children, regardless of whether they are or not.

Oh, and PM, I'd also add in some dubious Manga examples, as I think that shows the subtle erosion that can occur even if actual images were dealt with.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Oops.

Posted by: privatemusings

yeah... it's 'en.wikipedia.org' (for the english wikipedia) - in the spirit of all being on the same side etc. - I think this is a valuable first draft, but could be improved - maybe we should head over to wikipediareview or something to work it up into better shape? You up for that, white knight? If so, you, I, or anyone can copy it over and we can get going :-)


ps. next vid. will have to wait (as will the swim).... beer won yesterday afternoon.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

or

"Yo!
You read Wikipedia? You read? You a Commie or summat? Uh, you read comix? Yay, canz uz biz Prezident!!
Hey, I'm too stooopid (I'd uv voted for you, if I had voted) to no what my kids are doing. Stop them! Oh, Wikipedia...? Right... Uh... Right, cos my kids are looking at nudie stuff on WP an thems saying its like cool cos its an ensigh...kloe... pedia (hey, thats like that word for perverts who fuck kids, YEAH, goddam)... and thems are stopping me downloading porn, and drinking beer, and shooting shit with semi automatic weapons of personal freedom.
I dunno why I pay minimal tax dollars if you aint going to sort out shit what like I am supposed to but I have to eat more hamburgers to give a shit. Don't fucking tell me to watch what my kids are doing, I pay you to do that - and then complain that you are commies and destroying my deemokracyyy.
Regards, and who the fuck are you anyway? - I never voted for no commie reading bigwig, or nobody either (etc.)"

(mods: Tarpit this for not being funny, if you want. Should I care?) Point is, if there are to be limits on the exposure of young persons then the responsibility lies outside WP. When there is the desire for parents to take the responsibility that is legally there to guide their children in what they may view on the web, then WP may instigate some access coding. If no-one is prepared to log their kids ip or log-in as a non-adult, then flagging content as unsuitable for unsupervised minors (and catting same) will mean that more rather than less "indelicate" content will be accessed by minors - since a flag then becomes a signpost.

Whilst I am at it - cos I know I'm going to get shit for this - I wouldn't trust the general public to determine what is indelicate; prejudice and stupidity being what it is. I should think that an image of two (fully clothed and not in a bedroom) men kissing is likely to be regarded as more "inappropriate" than depictions/examples of rape. I personally don't think that rape (which is a crime of violence) needs illustrating, because mechanically it differs little from sex - it is the mindset and violation of privacy and respect that makes it an assault - wheras an image showing men kissing examples both tolerance and the breadth of love... I know enough to realise that I could not be an arbiter of what is adult and what is not, but I am in the process of bringing up children and I am not going to be looking to some website to make decisions that is my responsibility. That is my job.

Posted by: privatemusings

well it wasn't a bad effort :-)



I actually largely agree with you about responsibility lying with the parents - but I also feel that the WMF could help, and has a responsibility to help. Would you agree that the WMF is rather an outlier in terms of the way it treats this material? Flickr, google images, and even the many free porn sites generally require a 'click to say you're 18' screen of some sort - which (as 'House MD' said in one ep. even a 17 year old could figure out) doesn't actually prevent access, but does make it clear that the material isn't intended to be viewed, and in many (most?) folks' view isn't suitable for access for a minor.

The WMF also is attractive to children (this could be a good thing, with responsible governance!) - but that heightens its responsibility in my view to have sensible systems in place.

Your argument echoes many of the points made in the various discussions around the place, but it's reckless because it firmly closes the door on further discussion - which is a shame. The way forward probably starts if it's possible to acknowledge that the material on commons should or could be better handled - could you agree with this?

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

You've managed it, though.

Speaking of managed, better at Commons? In what way? Restriction of access? Who for? What premise? Who sets the limits? There is a lot of well argued reasoning at WR that there is a significant percentage of WP editors (and admins) that do not display the necessary maturity or mental competence (or fairmindedness) to make decisions regarding other contributors ability to edit the site. So who are these people who are going to "grade" thousands of images? "Wikipedians"? Not, for the reasons I have just given. Outsiders? On what basis do they judge, if they are not interested in the concept of an open editing environment encyclopedia enough to have contributed?

The other question is, what is inappropriate? For what age? Where do we draw the line and say, "This image destroys your - quite possibly inaccurate and maintained by fantasy from all sections of society - innocent world view" and then, "This image examples a world that you will live in, and is here to educate you and widen your expectations - for better and for worse - of the society into which you will become a contributing and vital part." Your and mine 10 year old child* is likely to view pierced and bejewelled genitalia long before they are allowed into the business end of a warplane, yet there is little regard to restricting access to information regarding weapons of war; it is something I find very hard to express my disturbance with - the ease by which death and mutilation subjects are allowed distribution, yet aspects of sexual love are condemned as immoral. If we are going to to restrict the viewing of cocks and pussy, and variations, why not the arsenals of death and oppression? My lasting point is that WP should not place arbitrary restrictions on material simply because it is unable to take a role that society itself has not encompassed, not without leading to censorship of its "adult" membership.

*I am getting tired of living the lie - the truth will out, you know?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Overdone. You've either had one too many bong hits, or one too few.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

You forget that in America the 6:00 news can broadcast video footage of an alleged decapitation but not of a wardrobe malfunction.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Reminds one of Wikipedia, which feels it can post photos of the raped and mutilated Chinese women of Nanking, but blocked a user who wanted to be called Nipples37 on grounds that it would have been distracting.

Cue Colonel Kurtz' best line from Apocalypse Now: "They drop fire on people but they won't let them write 'fuck' on their airplanes, because it is obscene..."

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Yeah ... but we are not talking about "kissing", lovely, we are talking about graphic anal sex, bolted testicles, spurting ejaculations and so on.

You are right, the discussion of what is reasonable and acceptable does lie with society and elsewhere.

You need to keep a focus on what the greater intention is and use the child protection not just as a means to an end in itself, that is to protect children, by as a device to highlight all the other irresponsibilities, unaccountabilities and faults within the system.

strict age limitations ...
as strong child protection as any educational institute or library would have ...
as rigorous sexual codes as any legitimate 501 c or business would have (no hard core porn on the walls) ...
editing accounts tied to identifiable individuals.

Your tone is very good ... I like the idea of reading out the list of top page views.

You can safely exclude meaningless pages such as "main page" (whatever the language) without damaging your credibility. "tetas japon", unsuprising enough, is another breast shot.


What do you call that? What is the technical term for it? Some kind of 'cognitive dissonance' ... OK ... but there must be a proper term for it.

The problem seems to be with 'too small minds'. A small mind can recognise the word "nipple" and react to it as a "bad" word (and I think in that case, it was a kid admin that knee jerked over it), but they cannot conceive of the enormity of something like a mutilated rape victim (if that is what it was).

Then you have to add in the other typical racial equations, as in

it [is/used to be] OK to show naked African breasts but not naked White breasts
it is OK to show raped Asians but not raped Caucasians
it is OK to show the victims of Japan but not the victims of the USA
it is OK to show pictures of 60 year rape victims but not recent rape victims (e.g. 12 year old raped by Marine in Okinawa)

Being rudderless, captainless and without any real editorial policy or board, we end up with this skewed and corrupt vessel ...

Hey, yeah, let's have a graphic picture of a mutilated woman on EVERY war topic so everyone can be equal because sure as hell it is verifiable. Ha ... just try it.

All it is, and I have always argued this, is atrocity pornography. And mainly cheap, politically motivated atrocity pornography at that.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Those are good points, even if motivated by your own ubber nationalism. I believe the best editorial choice for pic in that article would have been a composed and dignified survivor testifying before some tribunal, similar in spirit tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chinese_girl_from_one_of_the_Japanese_Army%27s_%27comfort_battalions%27.jpg, which in a rare display of good judgment is found in the WP "War Rape" article. That pic at least sustains the dignity of the victim.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

None. Never did, really. Speed was my thing - these days, however, if I want to stay up all night all I have to do is overwork my bladder.

Posted by: privatemusings

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=338289548#User:Misty_Willows_apparently_uploaded_child_porn - another worrying aspect of this case is that the image isn't actually deleted - it's still available (without any record of viewing to my knowledge except an un-monitored server log) to anyone with oversight 'ops' - I believe this may still be illegal.

ps. less heard - did you see my reply to you - I wondered how you might respond? :-)

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

I am not aware of you posting since mine (#62) above on this topic - is it in a different venue (or website...?)

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

I believe so.

On a similar note (and, rather ironically, using Wikipedia for the details), Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 has made the following illegal in the UK (as on January 26 2009):



(b) is wide-ranging.

Edit: Furthermore, I may be coming at this from a slightly different angle. While I consider myself conservative (both small and big "c" for those keeping count), I have no problem with pornography per se and would probably go so far as saying that if it is decided "Facial (sexual act)" is worthy on an article on Wikipedia, there are arguments to have a photograph with it.

I'd even find an argument that I'd rather adolescents could find porn on-line (it's not difficult!) than have to go to seedy newsagents and whatever. Probably has more to do with me being annoyed that it wasn't so easy when I was a teenager, though!

BUT...and this is the big "but"....my issue is with there being no age-verification when images are submitted, combined with the "oh, it was on Flickr so it must be fine" attitude. As I posted to Jimbo recently:



That's what disturbs me the most.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

As I told you, I am not an nationalists, Assbead, and certain not a Japanese nationalist. I am not Japanese. So bury this one for the last time ... I stepped into the middle of fight between two groups of "uber nationalists" fighting ghosts;

whack job Koreans, like Caspian blue, and
idiotic, puffed up, bull-neck Yankee patri-urtz

in an attempt to temper their politics and create encyclopediac content.

I found it to be impossible. In doing so, I had my other negative experiences of the Wikipedia confirmed ... I also found the Japanese editors to be the least of any problem by a long way. Not only did I not find them to be a problem ... I did not find any at all.

The Yanks and Koreas are shooting bullets fighting ghosts beating on the drums of their own racism. Racism which motivates and defends current political agendas. It has nothing to do with encyclopediac knowledge or the women themselves. The Wikipedia is so full of racism, it is blind to it..

So, back on topic, thank you ... the question is, should there be child protection limitations placed on the hard core amateur pornography ... AND the politically motivated atrocity pornography?

As for the history of Comfort Women and military rape in Asia, the Japanese stopped absolutely in 1945 ... then the Americans and Korean took over for the next 20 to 30 odd years with over 1 million women in Korea alone being debased by it. So who is there to point fingers at anyone?

And, yes, historically the Korean government colluding prostitution rackets did called their victims "Comfort Women" right up into the 70s, victims is all the same way they prior to 1945 ... but try getting that FACT past the Censors of the Patriot Guard.

Posted by: tarantino

Mike Godwin, the putative legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation and all around schmuck, would rather not get involved with the immorality or illegality of children accessing, administrating or producing porn, or the issue of the Foundation hosting illegal content such as child pornography, unless he's contacted by the US Department of Justice. He prefers to let an 18 year old Australian contractor decide what's right.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056674.html -

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056672.html -

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Shows a complete lack of understand of the process of investigating and building a criminal case. Prosecuting authorities would never contact an attorney about concerns while conducting an investigation of his client. If they get a warrant to search the contents of the servers there is no prior notice. The first call you get as a courtesy is to bring your client in for arraignment without an arrest, and then only if flight risk is low.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The WikiMedia Foundation will continue to maintain the pretense that it's "Just A Phone Company", that its role is solely that of Charitable Provider Of Backyard Fences for Da Community to gossip or spit or dump toxic waste or fire nucular missiles over or whatever Da Community Feels Like Doing.

The WMF motto will ever be —

Eventually the excesses of Da Community will result in new laws being written, and Wikipediots will have succeeded in taking a good measure of our onetime freedoms down the toilet with them.

Jon

Posted by: Cedric

Not that surprising, really. From everything I have read about him, I have never once seen any indication that Godwin has ever tried a case, although he evidently has co-written a few appellate briefs in civil cases.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Methinks you compare apples to oranges. You're claiming these were secret slave women, and the Amercian military KNEW this?

Bullshit.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

What a tosser ... What it means is, "we are going to keep doing fuck all about all this until we are sued, arrested ... or the kids at WR give up", with a calculation as to the legal risk of it ... probably fairly low and easily defended. Nothing to do with ethics or morality or encyclopediac creation. I guess is the Foundation is also fairly smug and confident in relying on all the unpaid wiki-serfs to sweep the filth under the carpet ... and for the likes of us here to helpfully flag it up for them.

So, probably the best thing to do is shut up about it all ... just keep logging and documenting it ... and do one's best to engineer a situation where either through social or legal intervention, they have to do something about it. I don't see anything else having any effect on the culture.

Not impossible, I would say ... just keep chat off line so Alison wont go and tidy it up for them.

We have cross swords about this before Milton. You are an ignorant bigot parading under the guise of patriotic goodness, rolling out all the same old tired homilies, and assuming I am some kind of folk devil that fits in neatly into binary grasp of reality. Life is more complex. The propaganda is not true.

You cannot even keep your racist bigotry out of the way when it comes to discussion a serious and CURRENT event such as child protection TODAY, their access to and administration of hard core amateur pornography on the Pee-dia.

Pathetic ... digging up corpses 60 years dead to make nationalist propaganda to traumatise children with ... just like on the Pornopedia.

What was I thinking about? Oh, what about the abduction, serial rape and murder of Vietnamese women by the ROKMC whilst they acted as Uncle Sam's cheap and vicious mercenaries for which the South Korean government, has never apologized about, refuses to acknowledge and has never compensation the Vietnamese for. Does that really that sound like a different bitter fruit to anyone else? Perhaps now I am a Vietnamese nationalist too.

(Anyone who knows half of anything about history of the area, and wants a good laugh, have a read of the Wiki version of the ROKMC history and the Korean General's war whoring for America).

Business as usual for the region ... and, as usual, impossible to discuss on the Porno-pedia because of doughballs like this.

Keep on topic ... or keep off the thread will you?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

OK ..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools.

I suspect the good parents of southern California schools have not seen the Pornopedia yet but might be pointed in the right direct for an eyeful.

Apparently, a parent complaining about a child reading the definition for "oral sex" in the Merriam Webster's 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has had it pulled from shelves over fears that the "sexually graphic" entry is "just not age appropriate".

A panel is now reviewing whether the ban will be made permanent.

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

:facepalm:

@ any of my fellow Americans who might read this thread, please remember this story next time you have the [forrest-]gumption to ask why none of the other industrialized countries will ever stop ridiculing us.

</public_service_announcement>

Posted by: tarantino

It does march on.

Review the recent contribution history of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Owner01 or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Max_Rebo_Band. Don't click on anything with hodensack in the name if you are even a little squeamish.

And so it goes.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Posted by: tarantino

Wikifiddlers will be happy to learn that Donkey punch (T-H-L-K-D) * now has an animated graphic to illustrate an apocryphal and potentially lethal sexual practice supposedly performed during anal sex. Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, etc, you should all welcome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flyingfeck for his altruistic donation of http://www.webcitation.org/5ttw8EMHB.

* http://www.webcitation.org/5ttwMXRw0

Posted by: EricBarbour

Max Rebo Band is still grabbing images from Flickr, several of them at least once a week,
and putting them on Commons. Lately, almost all of them have been BDSM.

The image owners never seem to complain or object. All I see is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Max_Rebo_Band/list. (Whiny little bitch.)

Sometimes I wonder if the inclusionist/deletionist hostility will eventually destroy Wikipedia. There appears
to be maniac extremists on both sides, equally obsessed with their mutually-exclusive "goals".

Posted by: tarantino

Actually http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:32X&oldid=45470720#RtV, and asked 32X to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20101028&limit=100&type=delete&user=32X&month=&year=. 32X hasn't made a lot of progress yet.

I won't forget you Max, and your obsession with tit torture, and neither will http://www.webcitation.org/5tuEwZuXm.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Let us clear here ... does Max 'Mr Tit Torture' Rebo want to vanish or does just he want his name taken off the images so that the images to remain.

I think it is the later. I think it is a ploy to ensure the images are not deleted by making them harder to find.

Posted by: carbuncle

Max Rebo Band has had his userpage deleted on Commons, per "right to vanish", although he has continued editing. He has also requested that his user page be oversighted, his uploads be disassociated from his account and when that is done, he be "banned". Apparently http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_24#Restoration_of_deleted_user_pages:

Posted by: Gruntled

I don't follow that. If he grabs an image and puts it on Commons, either it stays there and he scarcely needs to keep reposting it every week, or it gets deleted, and he'll be blocked if he keeps re-posting it.

Why should they? If they've granted a CC license he's quite entitled to do it. They may well be delighted to see their "works of art" get wider exposure. If they don't want the photos to go any further, they'll have "all rights reserved" and the photos would probably get deleted from commons as copyvios.

Posted by: lilburne

Problem is that most of the porn on flickr is a copyvio. Check whether any of the accounts are still active on flickr 6 months afterwards, most will have been deleted for copyvio. The uploaders have an attitude that anything they've been sent via email, or found on the web is public domain and as flickr doesn't allow a PD designation they use CC-BY-SA, the filenames will all be random numbers and letters or they'll be stuff copied from other flickr accounts. The majority of genuine adult content uploaders are using ARR.

An adult flickr account with just a handful of images is usually a copyvio, as is one with a succession of different participants, few get to photograph 20 different (wo)men with cum over their faces, or engaging in anal sex. Changes in lighting and style are also dead giveaways. As are images in different resolutions ie some 400px, 640px, 800px, and others 1024px.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

As we all know, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on several previous Open Mike Nights.

Posted by: HRIP7

John Vandenberg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gif that animation for deletion yesterday.

The Commonists – mattbuck, Saibo & Co. – argue of course that Commons is not censored, and that historic use of the file in Wikipedia projects makes it "clearly" educational.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=476044607#Seriously.3F

The Donkey punch article, with the animation in it, has been viewed http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Donkey_punch these past 30 days, with 129,000 page views on January 17 alone. According to these figures, the Donkey punch is one of Wikipedia's most viewed articles ...