The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why Is Wikipedia Still Doling Out Porn?, It's a dirty job, and there's no one else doing it?
Newsfeed
post Fri 24th February 2012, 5:12pm
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885



Why is Wikipedia still doling out porn?

Fox News
29 Jun 2007 • Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, answers a question during an interview in St. Petersburg, FL. • FoxNews.com investigation into allegations of child pornography online …
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 24th February 2012, 5:57pm
Post #2


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
A FoxNews.com investigation into allegations of child pornography on online encyclopedia Wikipedia -- allegations that came from co-founder Larry Sanger himself -- led to a nationwide scandal, massive sitewide pornography purges and pledges to “do better.”

But nearly two years later, Wikimedia Commons -- the image repository for Wikipedia that’s accessed daily by millions of kids for school research -- is still littered with graphic pornography. The Wikimedia site lacks any restrictions or filters, meaning explicit images pop unexpectedly into results when you search for words like “bleach” or “coddle” or phrases like “how it feels.”

Search for the word “underwater” and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub.



Home Roost Chickens.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 24th February 2012, 6:18pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I find this interesting...

On my blog/spam/news site, Examiner, I once made the comment:
QUOTE
Jeffrey Risner believes that when you look up photos to illustrate "underwater", one of the first things you should see, whether you like it or not, is a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub. I guess that fact is the opposite of whatever "pure sensationalism" is.


And from this Fox News article now, it says:
QUOTE
Search for the word “underwater” and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub.



I guess Examiner is influencing the mainstream media?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm
Post #4


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off more than Youtube wink.gif
Image
( foxnewslies.net )

+ outfoxed.org

+ google.com/search?q=site:mediamatters.org fox news lies fact check

I can't find the damn post but the word wasn't spam site, we said you were spamming it, when you were using misleading comments like "I found this great article" or "this author is realy insightful" when linking to your own blog tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:14pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 24th February 2012, 6:18pm) *

QUOTE
a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub

QUOTE
a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub.


Yes, a vague similarity I grant you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:25pm
Post #6


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm) *

Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off much more than Youtube wink.gif



But now we can add Examiner to their list of quality sources too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:26pm
Post #7


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Burn smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:33pm
Post #8


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm) *

Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off much more than Youtube wink.gif



But now we can add Examiner to their list of quality sources too.

Face fucking palm. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:59pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:33pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 24th February 2012, 8:10pm) *

Fox News isn't exactly known for researching off much more than Youtube wink.gif



But now we can add Examiner to their list of quality sources too.

Face fucking palm. laugh.gif

Well done, Fox. I guess this came from Larry?
QUOTE
“Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized,” Jay Walsh, a Wikipedia spokesperson, told FoxNews.com.

And there I thought the board had decided that there was not going to be any content labeling or categorisation. confused.gif

Selection and implementation of an image filter was due to begin in January. It was due to be discussed at a Foundation Board meeting a couple of weeks back, but in the end, Jimbo said, the Board didn't get round to it.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Fri 24th February 2012, 10:03pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 24th February 2012, 8:59pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 24th February 2012, 6:18pm) *

I find this interesting...

On my blog/spam/news site, Examiner, I once made the comment:
QUOTE
Jeffrey Risner believes that when you look up photos to illustrate "underwater", one of the first things you should see, whether you like it or not, is a woman in hog-tie bondage, submerged in a bathtub. I guess that fact is the opposite of whatever "pure sensationalism" is.


And from this Fox News article now, it says:
QUOTE
Search for the word “underwater” and you’ll see a woman tied up, naked, and submerged face down in a bathtub.



I guess Examiner is influencing the mainstream media?

Let's hope it does.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 24th February 2012, 9:04pm
Post #11


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
Walsh says one reason explicit content is so easy to find has to do with Wikipedia’s worldwide accessibility. “It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures.



They should have asked which nation or culture revels in images of spitting semen into somebody's mouth.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Fri 24th February 2012, 9:09pm
Post #12


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 24th February 2012, 3:59pm) *
Selection and implementation of an image filter was due to begin in January. It was due to be discussed at a Foundation Board meeting a couple of weeks back, but in the end, Jimbo said, the Board didn't get round to it.
I wonder how long it will take for the board to realize that they're essentially serving as a foil for Jimmy. As long as they're stupid enough to play the scapegoat, he can continue to claim that he's trying (very, very, very hard) to make things better, but that darn do-nothing board is to blame for everything.

How much does he get paid for speaking engagements these days? Fortunately his "special relationship" means that he doesn't have to give the WMF a cut (not that they need it).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 24th February 2012, 9:35pm
Post #13


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 24th February 2012, 9:04pm) *

QUOTE
Walsh says one reason explicit content is so easy to find has to do with Wikipedia’s worldwide accessibility. “It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures.



They should have asked which nation or culture revels in images of spitting semen into somebody's mouth.


I would have thought that it's just the weather for snowballing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 24th February 2012, 10:17pm
Post #14


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



On the one hand, I can't manage any sympathy for the WMF in this matter.

On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have
unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any
political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic
purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing
ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these
rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's
other content? Of course not.

The lunatic right has been bitching them out for hiring more liberal and moderate commentators.
And look at the Conservapedia article about Fox. Funny as hell because it's totally insane, but it makes a valid point:
Murdoch is more interested in dollars than in "conservative purity".

You cannot trust them to make decisions that are favorable to society at large, any more than you
can trust Wales to do so.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 24th February 2012, 10:18pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Fri 24th February 2012, 10:25pm
Post #15


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:17pm) *

You cannot trust them to make decisions that are favorable to society at large, any more than you can trust Wales to do so.
That's not fair, really. The Murdochs employ lots of people at market rate, while Jimmy leeches off of people who work for free.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Sat 25th February 2012, 12:31am
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:17pm) *
On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have
unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any
political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic
purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing
ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these
rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's
other content? Of course not.


This analysis is on the money, as it were. tongue.gif

The sudden interest of Fox News in Larry Sanger's critique of pornographic content on Wikipedia seems to be almost engineered to egg-on the well-documented prurient obsessions of Fox-News types. The outraged consumer of Fox News content will point a browser to this investigative report solely on the basis of the word "pornography" in the headline. They'll tut-tut, dutifully scour Wikipedia for said pornography, rub out a quick one, and then loudly proclaim that the godless lib'rruls are corruptin' the chill'un with their interwebs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Larry Sanger
post Sat 25th February 2012, 3:16am
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun 2nd May 2010, 9:22pm
Member No.: 19,790

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Fri 24th February 2012, 7:31pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 24th February 2012, 5:17pm) *
On the other hand, using Murdoch and Roger Ailes as proxies in a culture battle is bound to have
unpleasant side effects. They are total slime, more interested in making money than in any
political or culture considerations. Even their right-wing political convictions are secondary to the basic
purpose of Fox News: to act as the New York Post or The Sun of cable TV. As long as the right-wing
ranting and idiocy brought in eyeballs, they were happy. Why else would they be running these
rants about porn on Wikipedia? Do they EVER offer serious analysis or discussion of Wikipedia's
other content? Of course not.


This analysis is on the money, as it were. tongue.gif

The sudden interest of Fox News in Larry Sanger's critique of pornographic content on Wikipedia seems to be almost engineered to egg-on the well-documented prurient obsessions of Fox-News types. The outraged consumer of Fox News content will point a browser to this investigative report solely on the basis of the word "pornography" in the headline. They'll tut-tut, dutifully scour Wikipedia for said pornography, rub out a quick one, and then loudly proclaim that the godless lib'rruls are corruptin' the chill'un with their interwebs.


Hm. I didn't see any mention of "godless lib'rruls" or any other conservative shibboleths in this particular article. Far be it from me to defend Fox News, but I thought the point of the article was to follow up the controversy of April/May 2010--to say that, in fact, if you had the impression that some sort of porn filter would quickly be installed on Wikipedia anytime soon, you would have been wrong.

It's too bad that only FoxNews.com takes an interest in this story, but that doesn't mean it is strictly a conservative story or that the story as they tell is wrong. In fact, the story is pretty much correct and on the mark in every respect, as far as I can tell. Do you have something to say about the story, as opposed to the source you found it in?

Anyway, enough meta-discussion. The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this.

"Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized." Oh, that's true, I'm sure. But the point is that there are lots of pictures of semen-covered faces, scores (hundreds?) of penises, objects inserted into all sorts of orifices, drawings of children being sexually molested, and various other things. These are some examples of the "controversial content" in question. And ultimately, the question is not whether such content should be called "pornography"--really, who cares? The question is whether such content should be treated in the same relatively mature way it is treated by a website like Flickr--or even websites that host explicit porn, but which have users confirm that they are over 18. Why on Earth should Wikip/media insist on being more explicit in how it presents its porn than an actual porn site?

"Wikipedia argues that parents and guardians should monitor at all times what kids can view online, and Walsh says guardians should be the ones to restrict access." This sounds responsive to the issue, but it really isn't. Even if a parent is looking over the child's shoulder, he should have the ability to determine whether a child should be shown the full monty. Wikip/media doesn't give him that ability. And besides, it's not only about children. Some adults don't want to be confronted with these images, and would strongly prefer to be able to exclude them from searches and so forth that they make, just as Google Image Search (not at all for prudes--when safe search is off!) does. No, the issue is whether Wikip/media gives its users the tools that they need to "restrict access" in the way they want.

"These articles contain referenced and documented information about a known topic. These topics may not be of interest or appealing to all people." What a ridiculous, even childish thing to say, even if we understand him to be talking about Wikipedia only and not Wikimedia Commons. That articles may not be of "interest" or "appealing to" people is obviously not the issue. The issue is whether Wikipedia is serving the public in a sensible way, that serves their expectations and interests. I would argue that clearly it isn't. But again, Walsh's job is impossible. There is no way that he can address that issue (whether the lack of a filter serves the interests of all users, but especially users with children) head-on and be anything but ridiculous or outrageous.

"But even those who produce pornographic content oppose having explicit images so easily accessible on Wikipedia. Q Boyer, a spokesperson for Pink Visual, a company that produces pornographic films, says Wikipedia should at least use a content filter similar to the SafeSearch function on Google.com." I want to see some serious journalist describe a half-dozen extremely explicit images on Wikipedia and Commons, then read the bit from Q Boyer to Jimmy Wales, and then ask, "It's been almost two years. Why hasn't Wikipedia adopted some common-sense filter of that sort, a filter that even a pornography company uses?" I would add: "Aren't you ashamed to be associated with an organization that drags its feet on such a thing even while recommending that the site be used by school children?"

"It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures. As a volunteer, non-profit project we're simply not resourced to do that," says Jay. Wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. It's just another data field. Yes, they've got a lot of images, but so does Flickr. And they've got a lot of people at work on the project, and the vast majority of images are fine and so can be quickly and easily labeled. If they were serious about it, they'd come up with tools that would allow users to label (categorize, or whatever) multiple pictures on a single page, using category and user markers as indicators of which pictures to review first. It's a big job, but it's totally possible. Hold contests to see who can label the most pictures. Invite people in from outside the website for this purpose (of course, Wikip/media would never do that, but they could). Do meta-review of image reviewers--if someone mislabels images enough, they lose the privilege of doing so. Etc., etc. And don't talk to me about the system being imperfect. All systems are imperfect, but a somewhat leaky filter is better than no filter. And also don't talk to me about there being impossible issues to resolve. Bullshit. Wikipedia makes decisions about all sorts of hard issues, and prides itself on doing so.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: Sat 25th February 2012, 3:19am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sat 25th February 2012, 3:34am
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I note that the author of the piece was on Natka's Facebook page (which also hosted a link to Greg's Examiner column).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sat 25th February 2012, 4:05am
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sat 25th February 2012, 3:16am) *
Hm. I didn't see any mention of "godless lib'rruls" or any other conservative shibboleths in this particular article. Far be it from me to defend Fox News, but I thought the point of the article was to follow up the controversy of April/May 2010--to say that, in fact, if you had the impression that some sort of porn filter would quickly be installed on Wikipedia anytime soon, you would have been wrong.

It's too bad that only FoxNews.com takes an interest in this story, but that doesn't mean it is strictly a conservative story or that the story as they tell is wrong. In fact, the story is pretty much correct and on the mark in every respect, as far as I can tell. Do you have something to say about the story, as opposed to the source you found it in?

Anyway, enough meta-discussion. The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this.

"Discussions have been under way for quite some time about how controversial content should be labeled or categorized." Oh, that's true, I'm sure. But the point is that there are lots of pictures of semen-covered faces, scores (hundreds?) of penises, objects inserted into all sorts of orifices, drawings of children being sexually molested, and various other things. These are some examples of the "controversial content" in question. And ultimately, the question is not whether such content should be called "pornography"--really, who cares? The question is whether such content should be treated in the same relatively mature way it is treated by a website like Flickr--or even websites that host explicit porn, but which have users confirm that they are over 18. Why on Earth should Wikip/media insist on being more explicit in how it presents its porn than an actual porn site?

"Wikipedia argues that parents and guardians should monitor at all times what kids can view online, and Walsh says guardians should be the ones to restrict access." This sounds responsive to the issue, but it really isn't. Even if a parent is looking over the child's shoulder, he should have the ability to determine whether a child should be shown the full monty. Wikip/media doesn't give him that ability. And besides, it's not only about children. Some adults don't want to be confronted with these images, and would strongly prefer to be able to exclude them from searches and so forth that they make, just as Google Image Search (not at all for prudes--when safe search is off!) does. No, the issue is whether Wikip/media gives its users the tools that they need to "restrict access" in the way they want.

"These articles contain referenced and documented information about a known topic. These topics may not be of interest or appealing to all people." What a ridiculous, even childish thing to say, even if we understand him to be talking about Wikipedia only and not Wikimedia Commons. That articles may not be of "interest" or "appealing to" people is obviously not the issue. The issue is whether Wikipedia is serving the public in a sensible way, that serves their expectations and interests. I would argue that clearly it isn't. But again, Walsh's job is impossible. There is no way that he can address that issue (whether the lack of a filter serves the interests of all users, but especially users with children) head-on and be anything but ridiculous or outrageous.

"But even those who produce pornographic content oppose having explicit images so easily accessible on Wikipedia. Q Boyer, a spokesperson for Pink Visual, a company that produces pornographic films, says Wikipedia should at least use a content filter similar to the SafeSearch function on Google.com." I want to see some serious journalist describe a half-dozen extremely explicit images on Wikipedia and Commons, then read the bit from Q Boyer to Jimmy Wales, and then ask, "It's been almost two years. Why hasn't Wikipedia adopted some common-sense filter of that sort, a filter that even a pornography company uses?" I would add: "Aren't you ashamed to be associated with an organization that drags its feet on such a thing even while recommending that the site be used by school children?"

"It would require developing a multinational, multilingual system that identifies whether an article is 'safe' -- but that is not possible when you reach across hundreds of nations and cultures. As a volunteer, non-profit project we're simply not resourced to do that," says Jay. Wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. It's just another data field. Yes, they've got a lot of images, but so does Flickr. And they've got a lot of people at work on the project, and the vast majority of images are fine and so can be quickly and easily labeled. If they were serious about it, they'd come up with tools that would allow users to label (categorize, or whatever) multiple pictures on a single page, using category and user markers as indicators of which pictures to review first. It's a big job, but it's totally possible. Hold contests to see who can label the most pictures. Invite people in from outside the website for this purpose (of course, Wikip/media would never do that, but they could). Do meta-review of image reviewers--if someone mislabels images enough, they lose the privilege of doing so. Etc., etc. And don't talk to me about the system being imperfect. All systems are imperfect, but a somewhat leaky filter is better than no filter. And also don't talk to me about there being impossible issues to resolve. Bullshit. Wikipedia makes decisions about all sorts of hard issues, and prides itself on doing so.

Well said. applause.gif And I agree, this is a well-researched article.

The Wikimedian argument about there being no perfectly "neutral" way to categorise images (and that therefore it should not be attempted at all) simply does not stand up. Neutrality, as a Wikipedia pillar, is defined as following, first and foremost, the line of the most reputable mainstream sources. And whatever Wikim/pedia is doing here, it is not that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 25th February 2012, 5:04am
Post #20


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sat 25th February 2012, 3:16am) *
The comments by Jay Walsh are, predictably, ridiculous. Of course, he has an impossible job, if his job is to sound intelligent while defending this.

That is correct. And I'd still like to know what Mr. Walsh continues to say these things.

The Fox story isn't bad, they sometimes produce decent copy. Their problem is their public reputation.
Go and watch The Daily Show for a week--they spend a remarkable amount of time mocking bits
of Fox News video, routinely. Supposedly Jon Stewart sits all day long, watching Fox for "material".
There's something a bit off when you have a comedian, watching a "news channel", to steal ideas
for jokes--at the channel's expense.

Other commentators derive whole careers from whatever incoherent twaddle comes out of O'Reilly's
or Hannity's or Steve Doocy's mouth. And they had Glenn Beck, the king of paranoid shit, for
TWO YEARS. During which he became their #1 program, for a brief time.

Fox's report is all well and fine. When you get the New York Times or the Washington Post to write
about this, then I'll really be impressed. So will a lot of other people.

Anyone following the Tim Messer-Kruse story? It's been going on for THREE YEARS, and recently
resulted in Messer-Kruse writing it up. It was a major embarrassment for the Magicpedia.
I haven't seen much "mainstream" coverage of it. In fact, not much coverage of it, period.
The media keeps giving Jimmy and Co. a free ride. Why?

QUOTE
The Wikimedian argument about there being no perfectly "neutral" way to categorise images (and that therefore it should not be attempted at all) simply does not stand up. Neutrality, as a Wikipedia pillar, is defined as following, first and foremost, the line of the most reputable mainstream sources. And whatever Wikim/pedia is doing here, it is not that.

That's the essence of it -- Wikimedia's approach is profoundly hypocritical and absurd. They love the free
content their volunteers generate, but they dare not piss off a substantial percentage of their crazed
fan-following by censoring and filtering anything. And you need Fox News, never a paragon of consistency
or journalistic integrity (like it or not, that's their reputation), to point it out. Not good, no matter
what your position on penis photos is -- or on Fox News.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th 12 17, 8:37pm