Image hiding feature on hold ..., Subject to a revote, but no date set ... Options

[HRIP7]

The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold. WMF secretary Phoebe Ayers has advised that

Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. ... It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[EricBarbour]

The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

The fact that the thread came to a screeching halt, and others changed the subject on the list,
ought to tell you something. Never have I seen so many allegedly-"smart" people so unwilling to
confront a basic problem that is well within their abilities.

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

[HRIP7]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

[dogbiscuit]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

Given that there is precious little discussion actually needed, it is inconceivable that the Board couldn't find the time if they had any real interest.

It strikes me that this is the same as the flagged revisions, create a proposal, do enough to make publicity on it, leave those proposals in the public domain so that if challenged in the real world they can say it is being done, while not actually caring.

There is another prediction of the critics that has come rapidly true too. WMF is not really interested in the project, they have a wonderful money grabbing machine and now the money is more important than the project. Given that the WMF is awash with funds, it is bizarre to suggest that the concerns on money are so all-consuming that the board cannot function effectively on any other topic.

I would also comment that Peter's pressing of Wiki UK Ltd seems to have been very successful. Fae has absolutely understood that Wiki UK Ltd is genuinely at risk from these shenanigans, and while we might question his motives, he has been making several moves that are in line with taking the project in a better direction, and is learning that Wikipedia is no more his friend than the vipers' nest he perceives WR to be. Rather like BLP, improvement can be made and although the results aren't perfect, it is possible to make improvements elsewhere over time if the leadership is there. The fundamental issue with Wiki UK Ltd is that they had to show that the project had proper controls or else they could not demonstrate an exclusively charitable purpose of the charity. The fact that we have clear evidence of rejection of controls is very helpful to the de-registering of Wiki UK Ltd as a charity - if the WMF are not prepared to control the project, then Wiki UK Ltd cannot claim to be supporting an appropriate clause. The Charity Commission are currently claiming there is a subtle difference between being satisfied for the creation of a charity and the situation once it is up, but it all starts to look like it is valid to claim that the CC were mislead as to the practicality of the controls on the project.

Similarly, the fund-raising was supposed to be "keep the servers running" but what is clear is that the interests of WMF are unrelated to the project these days, they have a heap of money that they don't know what to do with. They raised money under false pretences, and they'll have to explain that to the UK authorities.

[thekohser]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

Thanks, guys!

[SB_Johnny]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

[lilburne]

scuppered

[dogbiscuit]

scuppered

And Jimbo's talk page is full of "supervise your children properly, it's not our problem." or "porn is good for you". It is amazing how Wikipedia keeps proving its critics right and yet the real world falls for Jimbo's spin. Jimbo's problem is that you can only say "We are doing something about it" for so long before eventually even the public will twig that they've been had - and the press really hate being embarrassed by falling for the spin and they'll do him over when they see the opportunity for the biggest fall.

Charity leeching money from the public for who knows what + porn site + defamation + misleading politicians = heading for a big fall.

WMF are in danger of giving Fox News a good name.

[thekohser]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

[dogbiscuit]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

thank you, I missed it first time around.

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

Greg pretty much nailed the big picture - even if the details weren't 100% prescient;"... will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion" [through bureaucratic means.] Then again, he nailed a couple of the details too.

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[lilburne]

toothbrush is nothing try forefinger.

[HRIP7]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes, that was the toothbrush thing. Fæ, to his credit, was trying to fix it. An important thing to note here is that the search results in Wikipedia are much the same as those in Commons. And seeing these search results under the Wikipedia logo is perhaps even more astonishing.

For example, Natka from the Stop Pornography on Wikipedia Facebook page just added the search term "human" to the Meta page listing all these "unusual" Commons search results (a page that could do with expansion).

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

By the way, I think that Facebook page could prove really useful. The Fox reporter who wrote the recent article showed up there a few days before his piece appeared. Facebook and Twitter are generally a much more effective medium for campaigning than a closed and somewhat insular site like WR. Natka is doing a really good job over there, and WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

[thekohser]

...WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

Selina's covering that duty now.

[HRIP7]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

[thekohser]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

[HRIP7]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

I take your word for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

On a more positive note, I note that it is currently safe again to do a Multimedia search for "tolling bells" in Commons or Wikipedia. File history. The rename was not popular at first though, judging by comments in the deletion discussion.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[dogbiscuit]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

I take your word for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

On a more positive note, I note that is currently safe again to do a Multimedia search for "tolling bells" in Commons or Wikipedia. File history. The rename is not popular though, judging by comments in the deletion discussion.

Cream pie is entirely wholesome now, it appears. (I only mention it so that someone gets over-excited at Wikipedia and "puts it right" again.

[Michaeldsuarez]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[dogbiscuit]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No agenda here at all then.

[TungstenCarbide]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[dogbiscuit]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

[tarantino]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

Beta_M is "politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise."

In other words, your typical commons contributor.

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

[melloden]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

There must be at least one porn addict in the world willing to spend a day doing that for a hundred bucks.

[SB_Johnny]

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

There must be at least one porn addict in the world willing to spend a day doing that for a hundred bucks.

Fifty bucks. The WMF obviously can't afford $100.

[HRIP7]

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

Beta_M is "politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise."

In other words, your typical commons contributor.

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Good find. Here is what he says about himself:

Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from capitalist fuckers.

Welcome to Commons. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

You know what other encyclopedia didn't have blatant sexual imagery? Meyers Lexikon, which just so happened to be the encyclopedia used under HITLER!!!1

Wow, that pretty much proves the point. I always suspected that the World Book was fascist for that very reason.

[carbuncle]

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

[HRIP7]

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

It is, it is ... put there by the man himself. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[EricBarbour]

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

That has to be one of the stupidest "lists" in Wikipedia history. Is that Beta M guy "important" in any possible way? He's been on WP since 2004, and he's 100% looney.....

[tarantino]

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

That has to be one of the stupidest "lists" in Wikipedia history. Is that Beta M guy "important" in any possible way? He's been on WP since 2004, and he's 100% looney.....

Stay tuned.

[Zoloft]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

[The Joy]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

What is misleading with "underwater"? She is underwater. If you continue to use the move tool that way (to undermine [[COM:NOTCENSORED]] and to push POLA to Commons) you will loose it. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

I'm tired of all the porn on Wikipedia. They keep falling off!

[EricBarbour]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) At last, this thread redeems itself!

[carbuncle]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) At last, this thread redeems itself!

And did you catch who created that particular barnstar? Beta M! It's a small world after all...

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67730900

Beta_M supports Commons becoming a repository of cartoon child porn. Beta_M is perhaps a fan of graphic child porn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=352912824

Also, here's Beta_M defending child porn:

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protection...hild_sadvocates

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/There_is_a..._cannot_express

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/shortcomin...alian_Sex_Party

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Australia_...aphy_upon_entry

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/court_forc...tay_with_father

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67730900

Beta_M supports Commons becoming a repository of cartoon child porn. Beta_M is perhaps a fan of graphic child porn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=352912824

Also, here's Beta_M defending child porn:

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protection...hild_sadvocates

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/There_is_a..._cannot_express

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/shortcomin...alian_Sex_Party

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Australia_...aphy_upon_entry

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/court_forc...tay_with_father

tarantino has uncovered more information on the possible Beta_M-child porn connection:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37062

[TungstenCarbide]

Finally, it is interesting that the Wikipedia community can get so upset about POV-pushing when it comes to politics, religion or Star Trek, but when it comes to sex related topics, it strongly supports a radical position that is clearly a minority position in the wider world and someone as extreme as Beta_M believes he has a free pass to campaign on Wikipedia.

It is interesting that Beta_M has found such a visible place to engage in activism. Commons is full of these characters.

'Anti-censorship' is the foundation of their rationale - it gives them faith in their moral superiority while uploading pictures of their wieners.

[timbo]

The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold.... The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

I'm a reasonable man. Tell ya what, WMF, as Chief Negotiator for en-WP I'll trade you your beloved censorship filter for belated acceptance of the premise that only autoconfirmed users should be permitted to start articles...


t

This post has been edited by timbo:

[gomi]

[Mod note: the tangential diatribes about porn and social stereotypes has been moved to here.]

[Michaeldsuarez]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) At last, this thread redeems itself!

And did you catch who created that particular barnstar? Beta M! It's a small world after all...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=66555914

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67845532

Niabot and Paddy (a former dewiki and Commons sysop) have given each other the "Hot Sex" barnstar. They're a tag-team:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...kumizu_Girl.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e_20#User:Paddy

They're also friends on YouTube:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22niabot%22+%22paddyez%22

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=66555914

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67845532

Niabot and Paddy (a former dewiki and Commons sysop) have given each other the "Hot Sex" barnstar. They're a tag-team:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...kumizu_Girl.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e_20#User:Paddy

They're also friends on YouTube:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22niabot%22+%22paddyez%22

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546690

Niabot believes that adults having sex with teenagers isn't pedophilia.

[Larry Sanger]

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

[Somey]

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

That's a good point about the "real danger" being the potential for a mass exodus of rational/sane contributors (what few are left!) in response to the increasing number of porn advocates. I might even go further and say that the number and vociferousness of porn advocates has already reached a "critical mass" that could trigger that exodus in the near term, before they're really able to respond to it in a meaningful or effective way.

And it's not just the fact that there are zillions of pages that would no longer be properly maintained - those same pages would be less and less "defended" against that increasing number of porn advocates, quack-medicine people, conspiracy nuts, ad infinitum. Eventually it might even reach the point where they can't even protect the site against major corporations! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[HRIP7]

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

That's a good point about the "real danger" being the potential for a mass exodus of rational/sane contributors (what few are left!) in response to the increasing number of porn advocates. I might even go further and say that the number and vociferousness of porn advocates has already reached a "critical mass" that could trigger that exodus in the near term, before they're really able to respond to it in a meaningful or effective way.

And it's not just the fact that there are zillions of pages that would no longer be properly maintained - those same pages would be less and less "defended" against that increasing number of porn advocates, quack-medicine people, conspiracy nuts, ad infinitum. Eventually it might even reach the point where they can't even protect the site against major corporations! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Good post by Larry. I've asked the WMF board members and the Executive Director for an official statement on the bestiality video:

If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...elect=mediawiki

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...elect=mediawiki


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board
members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view:
Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and
unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response
to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"?

[TungstenCarbide]

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

Thanks Dr. Sanger. Very interesting to see board members back-peddling in one of the links you have there.

Good post by Larry. I've asked the WMF board members and the Executive Director for an official statement on the bestiality video:

The board has starting to whimper and snivel (see Dr. Sanger's editorial for links), and the lovely David Gerard has contributed this fiercely intelligent response. Usually he invokes references to the evil of 'Merican gun toting Republican religious right prudes' (or Disenyland) to glorify porn by contrast - but not this time! Maybe he reads the WR.

<edit>
"Damn, I want to get re-elected"

Phoebe's getting roasted on a spit. It's a shame, I always liked her.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[HRIP7]

"Damn, I want to get re-elected"

Phoebe's getting roasted on a spit. It's a shame, I always liked her.

Agree. I always liked her too. And she always answered promptly and graciously when I asked her about the status of the image filter discussions. But she's putting her head in the sand here, hoping that that will make her look more electable.

[EricBarbour]

News flash: none of them are "electable". If the WMF were a "real" nonprofit charitable foundation,
they would not hire this motley gang of random nerds, okay? They would hire professionals
(or at least, someone who looks sort of professional).

They would also not have a "Board of Advisors" that contains a
chronic liar who edits both her own Wikipedia bio, and the bios of
her friends and co-workers. (And has friends and co-workers doing the same.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[dogbiscuit]

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

Thanks Dr. Sanger. Very interesting to see board members back-peddling in one of the links you have there.

Good post by Larry. I've asked the WMF board members and the Executive Director for an official statement on the bestiality video:

The board has starting to whimper and snivel (see Dr. Sanger's editorial for links), and the lovely David Gerard has contributed this fiercely intelligent response. Usually he invokes references to the evil of 'Merican gun toting Republican religious right prudes' (or Disenyland) to glorify porn by contrast - but not this time! Maybe he reads the WR.

<edit>
"Damn, I want to get re-elected"

Phoebe's getting roasted on a spit. It's a shame, I always liked her.

Stepping back for a moment, what does this tell us?

The WMF, the board that is responsible for the health of the project, has admitted when they tries to implement a simple change in the project to try and ensure that people were not unwittingly exposed to controversial content that they were subject to bullying and abuse from the community and therefore they changed their mind.

Now let's link that with Commons. There we have clear evidence that an unsavoury bunch of characters are using the project to further their own ideology on controversial content. In the process of doing this they are prepared to foster admitted pedophiles and when challenged are now going around altering the history of the project to cover up some of their tactical errors. There is a small reactive response to specific issues, but there is no sign that there is any controlling body that is going to attempt any corrective action.

So the WMF has no control over the policies of Wikimedia; accepts being bullied out of making decisions to improve the reach and acceptability of the project; and has no control over the ruling elite of the various projects and that the board members are content to operate in such an environment.

Now, let's consider where this leaves Wiki UK Ltd. They have claimed that there is policy that directs the proper governance of the project, yet here we have a fine example of an attempt at implementing a responsible publishing policy and they admit that they have no ability to implement it.

The joys of mob rule.

[timbo]

Stepping back for a moment, what does this tell us?

The WMF, the board that is responsible for the health of the project, has admitted when they tries to implement a simple change in the project to try and ensure that people were not unwittingly exposed to controversial content that they were subject to bullying and abuse from the community and therefore they changed their mind.

Now let's link that with Commons. There we have clear evidence that an unsavoury bunch of characters are using the project to further their own ideology on controversial content. In the process of doing this they are prepared to foster admitted pedophiles and when challenged are now going around altering the history of the project to cover up some of their tactical errors. There is a small reactive response to specific issues, but there is no sign that there is any controlling body that is going to attempt any corrective action.

So the WMF has no control over the policies of Wikimedia; accepts being bullied out of making decisions to improve the reach and acceptability of the project; and has no control over the ruling elite of the various projects and that the board members are content to operate in such an environment.

Now, let's consider where this leaves Wiki UK Ltd. They have claimed that there is policy that directs the proper governance of the project, yet here we have a fine example of an attempt at implementing a responsible publishing policy and they admit that they have no ability to implement it.

The joys of mob rule.

WMF knows they have a problem with Commons. They don't understand that there is only one way to fix it, given the fact that there are legal barriers to their micro-managing content — and that is to blow the mother up, assigning image hosting to the various language-WPs with a mandate that graphic content is to have educational connection via article links.

The image filter remains the key to the problem, in their view. If only there were a way to sift out the terrabytes of dix pix, then everything would be peachy. Actually, no, the right wing is gonna make political hay out of Commons porn forever and donors and serious contributors are going to be driven away as the porn hobbyists continue to entrench themselves.

Still, this has not been noted: the last time the vaunted image filter was put up for a vote the Muhammed Images issue was running hot. I myself opposed it on this basis, I don't want to make it simple for reactionary governments to "filter" content which they find uncomfortable. I'm not quite positive how a second try at the brass ring will turn out for WMF, particularly if they were to pare down the filtering capabilities to make it clear that their filter is about porn rather than "violence" or "religiously sensitive matters"...

t

This post has been edited by timbo:

[lilburne]

[Still, this has not been noted: the last time the vaunted image filter was put up for a vote the Muhammed Images issue was running hot. I myself opposed it on this basis, I don't want to make it simple for reactionary governments to "filter" content which they find uncomfortable. I'm not quite positive how a second try at the brass ring will turn out for WMF, particularly if they were to pare down the filtering capabilities to make it clear that their filter is about porn rather than "violence" or "religiously sensitive matters"...

t

Sorry but this reactionary government thing is crap. Over on flickr the content gets censored by Governments all the time. Flickr is almost continually banned in China and Iran. Yet I have a number of Chinese and Iranian contacts on flickr. How is that possible? Well because firefox and chrome addins to bypass the filters are readily available. The filters will be just as useful to reactionary governments as the Firewall of China is. The filters will only be effective at the personal level.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/henry_wang/59...157627022541053
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickytang/set...57629041828795/

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_...hild_protection

Let's see what, if anything, comes out of this.

[dogbiscuit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_...hild_protection

Let's see what, if anything, comes out of this.

I'm impressed.

[EricBarbour]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_...hild_protection

Let's see what, if anything, comes out of this.

I'm impressed.

I'm not. Partly because I've looked into Mr. De La Motte's personal history. He's an academic with a
master's degree, with a history of published papers and a career of working for nonprofits that
actually do something.

And what does he do with his spare time? He pisses around on Wikimedia Commons, fighting to defend a child-porn fan.

Most likely he started that proposal because someone threatened him into it.

[Mooby]

Dumb question perhaps, but if image filtering is something people want, why aren't there enterprising third party software developers raking in money by churning out plugins for that?

If I had kids I'd probably spring for a $10 plugin to keep the images of autofellatio and whatnot from showing up on the family PC. It'd be nice if WP did it themselves but it's not like if they don't do it no one could... or is it?

-Mooby

[Somey]

Dumb question perhaps, but if image filtering is something people want, why aren't there enterprising third party software developers raking in money by churning out plugins for that?

If I had kids I'd probably spring for a $10 plugin to keep the images of autofellatio and whatnot from showing up on the family PC. It'd be nice if WP did it themselves but it's not like if they don't do it no one could... or is it?

Welcome to WR, Mr. Mooby!

It's not a dumb question at all, but it would always be better to have the roll-up/blocking code run on the server, because it would be far less-easily defeated (presumably by the kids themselves). There are already third-party plugins like Image Blocker for Firefox that will do things like that, but even if that worked consistently well, whoever is running the browser could probably disable it fairly easily, or else just switch to another browser.

Even then, the problem is figuring out which images to block and which not to - and that's the real issue for The Faithful. The code has almost certainly already been written, the problem is getting people there to actually be accountable.

[HRIP7]

Dumb question perhaps, but if image filtering is something people want, why aren't there enterprising third party software developers raking in money by churning out plugins for that?

If I had kids I'd probably spring for a $10 plugin to keep the images of autofellatio and whatnot from showing up on the family PC. It'd be nice if WP did it themselves but it's not like if they don't do it no one could... or is it?

-Mooby

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

Welcome to Wikipedia Review! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

I'd have to assume local image-blocker plugins already work for those sites, don't they? I'm concerned that you didn't understand what he's suggesting.

[HRIP7]

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

I'd have to assume local image-blocker plugins already work for those sites, don't they? I'm concerned that you didn't understand what he's suggesting.

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

[Somey]

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

Well, maybe Mr. Mooby can clarify, but since he mentioned that as a parent he'd be willing to buy an add-on for this, I assumed this was a browser plugin, not something that image-hosting sites would be involved in themselves (i.e., Flickr's rules wouldn't change).

If so, then in theory the plugin developer could also maintain a list of WP categories known to contain lots of porn, and make it available on a free server for users of the plugin to connect to... but since the images themselves are not tagged in the article pages, the plugin would have to do a bandwidth-intensive load of the image's own page to see if it's in one of those categories. And of course, those categories could be changed or removed at any time.

And I can say with some assurance that software developers don't enjoy making products that are dependent on the whims of others over whom they have little or no influence, because their customers aren't going to complain to those others, they're going to complain to the developer. You might make a few bucks selling the add-on to a few people, but then you might go into negative value just trying to deal with the support calls.

[Mooby]

Thanks for the welcomes and apologies for posting in the wrong thread (had two tabs open... I promise to get the hang of this quickly!)

-Mooby

[Somey]

Thanks for the welcomes and apologies for posting in the wrong thread (had two tabs open... I promise to get the hang of this quickly!)

Ah, I've just fixed that. Should have done that earlier, sorry...

[HRIP7]

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

Well, maybe Mr. Mooby can clarify, but since he mentioned that as a parent he'd be willing to buy an add-on for this, I assumed this was a browser plugin, not something that image-hosting sites would be involved in themselves (i.e., Flickr's rules wouldn't change).

If so, then in theory the plugin developer could also maintain a list of WP categories known to contain lots of porn, and make it available on a free server for users of the plugin to connect to... but since the images themselves are not tagged in the article pages, the plugin would have to do a bandwidth-intensive load of the image's own page to see if it's in one of those categories. And of course, those categories could be changed or removed at any time.

And I can say with some assurance that software developers don't enjoy making products that are dependent on the whims of others over whom they have little or no influence, because their customers aren't going to complain to those others, they're going to complain to the developer. You might make a few bucks selling the add-on to a few people, but then you might go into negative value just trying to deal with the support calls.

Quite. The reason I reacted with ill temper to the suggestion was that this is one of the gambits always made whenever there is an image filter discussion on the Foundation list. "Oh, if people really were so keen to have an image filter for Commons / Wikipedia, someone would program one and make millions!"

Now, could you imagine Yahoo!, Flickr's owners, making that argument to the world? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

Thanks for the welcomes and apologies for posting in the wrong thread (had two tabs open... I promise to get the hang of this quickly!)

-Mooby

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Mooby]

Yes, I was thinking about a browser-side plugin. But let me be the first to admit I have no clue about Internet economics. I use all sorts of free Firefox plugins that seem to get updated regularly... seems like it would be simple enough (well, maybe not simple, but not rocket science either) to set up something that would parse the html coming from WP and see if any of the images the page wants to load match a blacklist downloaded from somewhere. Quite possible I'm not thinking of an important step in the middle, though.

-Mooby

[TungstenCarbide]

Yes, I was thinking about a browser-side plugin. But let me be the first to admit I have no clue about Internet economics. I use all sorts of free Firefox plugins that seem to get updated regularly... seems like it would be simple enough (well, maybe not simple, but not rocket science either) to set up something that would parse the html coming from WP and see if any of the images the page wants to load match a blacklist downloaded from somewhere. Quite possible I'm not thinking of an important step in the middle, though.

It's true, sometimes you can use duct tape and bailing wire to do a shitty job of repairing someone else's fuckup.

[Mooby]

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

No worries, I'm sure it's irritating to have a n00b say "hey what about this?" if it's already been discussed to death previously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

-Mooby

[HRIP7]

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

No worries, I'm sure it's irritating to have a n00b say "hey what about this?" if it's already been discussed to death previously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

-Mooby

You may enjoy this page (or looking at it may cause you to rapidly lose interest in the topic).

[lilburne]

They need a few controls flickr has 3 setting which aren't quite enough as they only really deal with sex and nudity, and some don't mind hardcore porn but don't like violence. So you want filters.

• mild nudity
• pornography
• mild violence
• gore
• religious personages

Can't decide whether X is in group A or B. Crowd source it. flickr does it by allowing users to flag an item as being wrongly flagged.

[Fusion]

I'm impressed.

I'm not.

Dogfight!

[dogbiscuit]

I'm impressed.

I'm not.

Dogfight!

Mine was an edit down of a longer post that someone who I am entirely unsure of due to being involved in ED was prepared to take a proper stance on this. Even if it is ineffective, it becomes a record of the determination of Commons to take a stance that is entirely at odds with the real world custom and practice on these matters.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68144400

The people on Commons are advocating the blocking of whistleblowers. If you find unsettling or disturbing facts about a person on Commons, they'll block you for revealing such information. They'll block you for stating facts that they're uncomfortable about hearing.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68144400

The people on Commons are advocating the blocking of whistleblowers. If you find unsettling or disturbing facts about a person on Commons, they'll block you for revealing such information. They'll block you for stating facts that they're uncomfortable about hearing.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68148893

They favor creating a chilling effect.

[EricBarbour]

Pierre Selim is one of the worst Commons "editors". So far as I can tell, he posts thousands of sports photos
that no one ever uses in any WMF project, uses bots to reformat/rename/recategorize images,
and argues with people on talkpages. That's all. He uses Commons as a hobby. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And they made him a Commons administrator last month.....

It seems to me that the talkpage in question resembles a gang of bullies, meeting during recess
in the boy's toilet, and calmly discussing whether to beat up the new kid after class.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68186246

Commons is expressing some xenophobia as well.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...page=Pedophilia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...9&oldid=3563311

Nemo_bis has protected and blanked the page.

[Tarc]

Avraham e-mailed me this morning asking me to redact my last reply to Stefan, but I guess the blanking saved me the trouble of telling him to go fuck himself.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[SB_Johnny]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68186246

Commons is expressing some xenophobia as well.

You mean Xenaphobia, I presume?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Xena_Logo.jpg)

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik.../News_and_notes

Here's the Signpost's report on the issues.