Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ Current State of Wikipedia on the Porn Issue ?

Posted by: 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 dry.gif

Posted by: Somey

For a succinct and clear summary, one of us is going to have to write a blog entry, and I suspect that the someone should probably be me. The problem is that it's very hard to maintain any sort of serious, or even non-lowbrow, discussion about porn anywhere on the internet, even on sites with closed and heavily-vetted membership lists. WR is no exception. Such discussions always go off on tangents and are full of various obscene/silly references and such... many of which are posted by yours truly, of course.

Another problem is that not everyone here agrees on just how serious the problem is, or whether or not it's an issue we should rally around, even if we support the more general notion that WP has waaaay too much porn.

Having said that, I actually liked the recent thread on the so-called "2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content" by WMF consultant Robert Harris. It actually started out taking a fairly positive slant, with many of us wanting to give the WMF/WP folks the benefit of the doubt, etc., and follows through almost to the point of conclusively proving that nothing positive will happen as a result of it. (I should say that it also contains one of my own better recent moments, when I pointed out (around page 6, I think) that of the roughly 1,000 penis photos on Wikimedia Commons, there actually was one taken of a black guy, contrary to what Harris had observed - only it's a grotesquely diseased black-guy penis, not a nice healthy one like all the white-guy penises.)

Anyway, I was thinking we could try to work out something fairly brief that covers all the main points, with a few links to key evidenciary pages, and then write it up and post it both here and on the blog. It could (and probably should) have some humor in it, but not of a sexual nature, since that would just be too obvious, and (I daresay) too cheap.

Posted by: carbuncle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nmatavka/N0rp

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

My request was incited by one commentator's impression that Jimbo had largely taken care of the problem in his recent highly-publicized porn-purge, which we all know had the same net effect of zero if not negative that all his highly-publicized pretensions do.

Just by way of orientation for the project, here are the comments I posted on Alison's Facebook thread:

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 15 Feb 2011)

This hasn't been one of those issues that I've followed all that closely, mostly because I find it extremely depressing, but I've asked other participants in The Wikipedia Review to help assemble a summary of the current state of things. Here is the thread that I initiated:

â–º http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33021


QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 15 Feb 2011)

The issue for me is not censorship, or else I'd personally be choosing to err on the side of the ACLU if I had to err at all. The issues are things like Hostile Work Environment, Child Labor, Truth In Advertising, and the Definition of an Encyclopedia. I believe in the maximum rational freedom of artistic expression and scientific inquiry. That means we have to tolerate all sorts of crap in the world, but it doesn't mean you can have your favorite e-rotica as your screen-saver at work, it doesn't mean you can experiment on undergraduates without going through proper channels, and it doesn't mean you can e-tice children “volunteers” to work into the early AM with who knows or who cares what kinds of adult “volunteers” on your tax-advantaged “charity” project for free.


Posted by: Kelly Martin

As I've said elsewhere here, Jimbo's porn-purge was intended to fail. Jimbo has, on several occasions, "championed" positions he knew would enrage the community, and which he did not himself support, solely because he needed to for publicity purposes.

If Jimbo truly supports a position, he will manipulate things through the backchannels to build "organic" support for it, so that his eventual edict appears to be merely a restatement of preexisting community opinion. The fact that he did not do this with respect to the porn issue clearly indicates that he is not concerned about Wikipedia's (and Wikimedia's) use as a repository of sexually explicit images. Indeed, his strategy here was to generate the appearance that "something has been done" without actually doing anything about it; that strategy appears to have been entirely successful.

Remember that Jimbo's primary goal in managing Wikipedia is to maximize participation (as measured by three metrics: page views, edits, and active editors). This is evident from several public and leaked private comments made by Jimbo, Sue, and Erik. Actually removing the porn is contrary to that goal. Jimbo's deletion spree had the effect (which I believe was entirely intentional) of cementing the notion that porn, of any and all sorts, is appropriate content for Wikimedia Commons, because that position maximizes participation.

Posted by: thekohser

Jon, I think that http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-commons-cannot-control-teen-pornography about a particular aspect of the phenomenon is quite readable and easily understood.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 15th February 2011, 2:57pm) *

Jon, I think that http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-commons-cannot-control-teen-pornography about a particular aspect of the phenomenon is quite readable and easily understood.


Thanks, Greg. I was under the impression that we had a WR Editorial on that whole brouhaha, but I couldn't find it when I looked. It appears that it may have been your article that I had in mind.

Here is the notice that I added to Alison's Facebook thread:

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 15 Feb 2011)

Reports of Jimbo's porn purge are greatly exaggerated. Gregory Kohs wrote an article for The Examiner that aptly summed up the wiki-wimper on Wikipedia that aftermathed the big bang in the Media:

â–º http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-commons-cannot-control-teen-pornography


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 17th February 2011, 2:34am) *

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon dry.gif

It might be a more interesting thread if I could also read what is being said on Facebook, which I can't...

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 16th February 2011, 10:22pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 17th February 2011, 2:34am) *

Silly me … again …

For a moment there I almost began to think anyone actually cared …

Oh well, back to my circles …

Jon dry.gif


It might be a more interesting thread if I could also read what is being said on Facebook, which I can't …


I copied most of my Facebook comments here, but I don't have the right to copy others. At any rate, you didn't miss much. It was the usual thing where all the Wiki-Addicted Communicants wimp out as soon as they begin to fear they might loose their ticket to communion for criticizing Duh Mudder Church.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: 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...

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:13am) *

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.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sat 19th February 2011, 10:13pm) *

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.

O! Say could you see in the net's early days;
What so proudly we thought was a reference work forming,
Where broad strokes and bright thoughts, though the fog and the haze,
Where from hives as we watched, worker bees were still swarming?
But then Jimbo's red glare, and his blasts of hot air,
Gave proof to the Right that the porn was still there;
O! say is that Commons still kept in disrepair?
With the content that is free, and the porn that's still there?


-MR

N.B.: That just came to me, inspiration unknown. It's sort of in ballad meter and style, so I think it would do well as a Wikipedia drinking song. smile.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 20th February 2011, 2:52am) *
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 completely 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.


Sounds accurate to me.

YES, please get it published somewhere!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:52am) *

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


All in All, a Culture of Deception …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:52am) *
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:13am) *
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.

* [blah blah blah... tinfoil hat donned ... blah blah blah]

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 is satire, right? Silly rabbit.

Posted by: HRIP7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giga_omorashi.jpg is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an http://www.webcitation.org/5wj3kFtmn, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an

QUOTE
optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 2:09am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giga_omorashi.jpg is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an http://www.webcitation.org/5wj3kFtmn, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an
QUOTE
optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

Tineye http://www.tineye.com/search/show_all/52661b8fff69e05f733a1e2a611fe68ae1eca046/360afb9aa8037d448e1642df12f701096fa31224b851c13249a555b1c282b8ea/encyclopediadramatica.com/1 it came from ED...

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 24th February 2011, 3:26am) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 2:09am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giga_omorashi.jpg is another image for the collection; screenshot from a fetish video, courtesy of Fsecret (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is an http://www.webcitation.org/5wj3kFtmn, just in case some admin with two brain cells comes along and deletes the thing. The NFCC rationale claims it's taken from an
QUOTE
optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. Copyright holder: ?

Looks to me like it was just grabbed off the net, but hey, AGF and all that.

Tineye http://www.tineye.com/search/show_all/52661b8fff69e05f733a1e2a611fe68ae1eca046/360afb9aa8037d448e1642df12f701096fa31224b851c13249a555b1c282b8ea/encyclopediadramatica.com/1 it came from ED...

It's on a bunch of blogs as well. What's the current status with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gomen_Nasai_Screen.jpg? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 3:46am) *

What's the current status with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gomen_Nasai_Screen.jpg? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.


That's the work of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30362&view=findpost&p=261651 , etc. Despite having accounts blocked on commons, enwiki, meta and simple, http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Midnight68&blocks=true, as well as creating new accounts to use.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/01510131077053781113.

Two of his new wm accounts must be http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HURRDURR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OldYorkBradley.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 8:18pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 3:46am) *

What's the current status with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gomen_Nasai_Screen.jpg? I can't remember if that's pedophilia or if it's just anime (or if there is any difference). Included in the Eroge (T-H-L-K-D) article.


That's the work of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30362&view=findpost&p=261651 , etc. Despite having accounts blocked on commons, enwiki, meta and simple, http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Midnight68&blocks=true, as well as creating new accounts to use.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/01510131077053781113.

Two of his new wm accounts must be http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HURRDURR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OldYorkBradley.

OldYorkBradley is JtV, as it happens. AKA 'Text' on here. Why he's into spanking and panchira, I've no idea.

Hey Text, any answers? hmmm.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 22nd February 2011, 5:08am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 20th February 2011, 5:52am) *


* 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

This is satire, right? Silly rabbit.


Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

Are you saying then that users never have their talk pages or email blocked? Or that this statement is an exaggeration? That hearings of the arbcom special cases are rarely secret?

My mistake, then.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:56am) *
Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

There are some ways you could soften it a bit, maybe make it a little less strident-sounding... but I wouldn't change a word of it, personally.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 9:32am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:56am) *
Which of those bits is satire then? Satire is stating outrageously overstated things about the object of satire in a way that exaggerates its faults.

There are some ways you could soften it a bit, maybe make it a little less strident-sounding... but I wouldn't change a word of it, personally.


It's much softer in the paper. This was a more strident version for WR readers. What I actually say in the current draft is

QUOTE
The final problem is the Wikipedia administration itself. As we saw, both sceptics and anti-sceptics use all kinds of dubious tactics in this dirty war. Anyone caught of playing dirty will be blocked by an administrator, unless they have influence in the Wikipedia adminstration itself. Wikipedia has an administration which is supposed to be neutral, but it was long ago infiltrated both by members of the pseudoscience establishment and sceptic groups (prominent among early members of the administration were both anti-scientologists, who are a sort of sceptic, and members of Ayn Rand’s “objectivist” cult, who are not). Regular battles in the rank and file are mirrored by intense secret battles in the administration, including the powerful ‘arbitration committee’, who are the final court of appeal.


I may post the whole version in the 'book' section of WR, for comment. Deadline is March 18.


Posted by: Text

QUOTE
he's into spanking and panchira


No thanks!

QUOTE
any answers?


I don't always troll wikis, but when i do, i LOL laugh.gif

Posted by: Text

Also, since Midnight68 is still active on the various other wikis, he uploads and puts his images on the respective pages, which results in bots uploading the freely licensed pictures to Commons again, in a feedback motion.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 3:31am) *

QUOTE
he's into spanking and panchira


No thanks!

hmmm.gif
QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 3:31am) *

QUOTE
any answers?

I don't always troll wikis, but when i do, i LOL laugh.gif

I just don't get it, though. You create a sock account on WP and on Commons - two separate ones. The Commons one uploads one of TGComix' ... "artworks" ... It shows a pigtailed child about to be spanked & her underwear is clearly showing ("panchira"). Caption: "NOW - COME HERE, YOUNG LADY! IT'S TIME FOR YOUR HOT BOTTOM!" And so on ....

So ... you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eroge&diff=prev&oldid=399975564 to the Eroge (erotic game) article and it stays there undetected for nearly three months. How is that trolling? Nobody knows it's there only you. Either you get your jollies secretly knowing you uploaded some of TGComix' inane panchira gaming shite to WP - take a peek every now and then and snicker - or you were doing it for TGComix himself, for some reason. Or some other reason I can't work out. Which is it? blink.gif

Posted by: Text

It's a good snicker against the brain dead administration who can't detect this stuff in a timely manner (either because they don't care about questionable material or they take anything that's freely licensed).

Wikipedia, always improving, and quickly?

This stuff also gets a butthurt reaction here, which makes for more lulz!

Posted by: Text

Well, what of Lina Medina? The only wiki to have a picture of her is the English Wikipedia, which is using the pic under the dubious fair use clause. The same image is scattered on various other sites which doesn't rule out the possibility of it being scraped without control.

Would the living subject in question be content with having this picture copied prominently on the web?

Posted by: HRIP7

Atomaton (T-C-L-K-R-D) has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_pornography_images&action=historysubmit&diff=415691429&oldid=415669432 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_pornography_images&diff=next&oldid=415691429:

QUOTE
My feeling is that the editor who wants [a mention of Wikipedia demograpics] in the essay is trying to be judgmental in some way to suggest/imply that single childless males are the primary participants if Pornography, or Hardcore pornography (whatever that is), and as such, are responsible for propgating that within Wikipedia. That seems like a leap from A to M without any of the intermediate steps. Don't we have a basic assumption of good faith on the part of all editors within Wikipedia?

Then he explains the correct way to illustrate the bukkake article:
QUOTE
I would support a real photo of the real act.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE
I would support a real photo of the real act.


Is he going to ask Seedfeeder, or is he going to take a picture himself?

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 20th February 2011, 10:52am) *

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


Good line, worthy of a WP caption I think.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

While we're on the subject of porn, what's up with that TV show called "Glee"? I watched it once, and I was stunned to find out that their high school singing group calls itself "nude erections."