Current State of Wikipedia on the Porn Issue ? Options

[Jon Awbrey]

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

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

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

[Larry Sanger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MZMcBride]

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.

[Peter Damian]

* 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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

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.

[Peter Damian]

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

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.



This post has been edited by Peter Damian: