Current State of Wikipedia on the Porn Issue ? Options

[Jon Awbrey]

Where would I find our best introduction or most succinct summary for interested outsiders on the current state of the Wiki-Porn issue?

There are active discussions of related matters on Facebook, and it always astounds me how often casual observers get taken in by Jimmy Sue's disinformation campaigns.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Larry Sanger]

This is actually a good question. I wish I had time to write about it myself. The potential for so many zingers is insane, and this is the time to get them out.

The WMF and Wales were pretending, alternatively, that there was no porn, and that they were taking care of the porn problem (on Commons) by deleting it. Nobody other than Fox reported that this was a pretty much completely abortive effort, that the porn was still there.

No journalist or, heck, any high-profile or merely quite coherent blog post has made the following point systematically: the WMF and Wikipedians like Wales, on the one hand, encourage and praise the use of WP for education of children; and, on the other hand, many Wikipedians themselves and many WP pages loudly proclaim that it is not "censored for children." (You know, the way, say, the New York Times or Britannica is "censored for children.") This would be the perfect context to point out that plenty of WP editors and admins are underage, and that WP is supported as a non-profit in this activity/management stance.

Nobody has done much of a follow-up about the Harris study, or explained how and why nothing seems to be getting done about it.

The basic point is that WP is run by what someone here is pleased to call Freie Kultur Kinder, by more or less adolescent males, themselves childless and radical on the issue of how free their porn must be. This manifests itself in all sorts of ways. Not just the proliferation of porn, but also the whole infantile community culture.

I talked on the phone at great length something like 8-10 months ago with both Gardner and Harris. Gardner seemed sincere about her desire to get something started about various issues I had raised. But nothing happened--well, nothing worth getting excited about.

Wikipedia deserves to have an accurate reputation. A reputation that reflects how it is really run.

The challenge is to write about such things in a way and in a venue not associated with conservatives...

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia deserves to have an accurate reputation. A reputation that reflects how it is really run.

I am writing a short piece for a journal (a rather modest journal, but an academic peer-reviewed journal with a respectable editorial board) about Wikipedia. I will be saying a little about its administration, and more I wrote it down the more absurd and corrupt it appears. E.g.

* It is run by a hierarchy of about 500 administrators.
* The election process is entirely run by these administrators
* Successful candidates have to be approved by senior administrators
* Non-administrators can participate in the election, but this is strongly discouraged unless the voter has proven sympathies with the administration
* Canvassing for elections, or for any cause whatsoever, is strictly prohibited ...
* ... except for administrators, who have a special chat room set up to block any actions or behaviour they deem 'disruptive'
* Elections for the governing committee are similarly controlled.
* There is little control over 'alternative accounts' which effectively give multiple votes to the same person
* Except of course for voters who are suspected not to be comp[letely loyal to the administration
* Those convicted of any offence against the administration (this is called 'disruption') are not allowed to speak in their defence. They are sometimes allowed to keep their own talk page, but this is very often blocked, in case they say something 'disruptive'.
* Hearings for special cases are generally held in secret

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

[edit] Except in the case of dictatorships, the people can take to the streets in the physical world and throw stuff and shout. In the virtual world, this is much more difficult.

Imagine a world in which absolutely everything was run like Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

Reminds us of the political system in recently deposed dictatorships, doesn't it.

All in All, a Culture of Deception …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)