Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons Options

[Tarc]

Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons (T-H-L-K-D)

Perhaps a legitimate article on the topic could be made, but this one reads like reflexive loli-defense by the Wikipe-tan regulars.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 21st March 2011, 1:20pm

[Silver seren]

I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.

And I find it hilarious that Sanger himself is getting involved. When did his account get unbanned?

[carbuncle]

I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.

Now it is, but we'll how long that lasts.

[thekohser]

From Wikipedia...

Wales said that the Fox News reporter, Lana Winter

Getting someone's name right, especially that of a published reporter whose name appears on every one of her articles, is one of the toughest things about building an encyclopedia, I hear.

[thekohser]

Perhaps a legitimate article on the topic could be made, but this one reads like reflexive loli-defense by the Wikipe-tan regulars.

If Mike Godwin is going to be invoked as an authority on the propriety of Sanger's charges, doesn't it stand to reason that the Wikipedia article should also note that Godwin mysteriously exited the Wikimedia Foundation not long after this fiasco? I mean, one reliable source described this as "startling".

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 21st March 2011, 5:03pm

[Tarc]

And I find it hilarious that Sanger himself is getting involved. When did his account get unbanned?

He was blocked for all of 30 minutes a year ago, that is all.

[Silver seren]

@Kohser: Since when is the Examiner a reliable source?

@Tarc: Huh...I would have expected differently. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that the most prominent critic of Wikipedia has been editing Wikipedia himself since he left.

[thekohser]

@Kohser: Since when is the Examiner a reliable source?

I don't know where policy said so, but in practice, it unquestionably is.

Hey, if such a news blip like this can make it as a Wikipedia article, where is the article about Jimmy Wales' affair with Rachel Marsden? Surely, that got wider and more durable coverage in the news cycle, didn't it?

@Tarc: Huh...I would have expected differently. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that the most prominent critic of Wikipedia has been editing Wikipedia himself since he left.

Yes, I think it says something that the true "lead" founder of Wikipedia hasn't edited in the main article space since October 2007, he being so disgusted by the putrid community and wretched governance practices.

[Silver seren]

Looking over his contributions, I notice that he carried on the anti-porn thing beyond just this incident, considering his comments at the content noticeboard.

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.

But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.

[thekohser]

Looking over his contributions, I notice that he carried on the anti-porn thing beyond just this incident, considering his comments at the content noticeboard.

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

I mean, I know that I already presumed religious parents keep their children away from Wikipedia because it has articles pertaining to homosexuality that present it in a light that isn't negative (considering said articles relate the scientific community's consensus that was laid out by the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is normal). Are the parents who don't expect there to be sex just these same religious parents? That would make sense.

But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.

I was going to ignore this comment of yours, Silver, because it is foolish. But, for those who might be otherwise astounded by a lack of response, who might be reading, here goes (again)...

Parents don't expect a tax-exempt encyclopedia that is funded almost entirely by federally tax-deductible dollars to have entries pertaining to a non-expert-edited point of view about child sex, rusty trombones, and smotherboxes. Such documentation of child sex is also against the law in the country where this website is served, and we citizens of the United States -- according to the law -- are not just encouraged, but obligated to report it to the FBI. Please don't make yourself look foolish.

We know you probably don't have children, nor is the responsibility of a raising a child something that you're ready for, being that you dress up in animal costumes for your jollies, but don't take this forum as an opportunity to defensively project your mores onto those of us who are parents by lumping us into some "religious parents" category. You don't need to be religious to be a furious taxpayer.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 21st March 2011, 8:24pm

[lilburne]

But any other parents believing as such doesn't make sense to me. Even Britannica has multiple entries related to various kinds of sex in it.

They don't expect there to be categories of every fetish ever dreamed of, nor multiple images of such, nor drawings of kids being fucked, or ejaculated over, or engaging in oral sex. Nor do they really want to have little Sandy describing said images at the dinner table when asked "So what did you do at school today dear?"

[Silver seren]

I actually wasn't referring to this article at all or about the images in question, I was referring to Sanger's comments at an old Content Noticeboard discussion (like I said in my last post) about the Cock and ball torture article, where it was decided to turn it into a disambiguation page between the band and sexual practice, which in turn also coincidentally serves as an article defense so the sexual practice article isn't the first thing you end up going to and being hit in the eyes with images that, while highly relevant to the article, may not be the subject in question.

Sanger was attempting to use the discussion to accuse the Foundation of violating its for children stance.

That's what my previous post was about.

P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.

P.P.S. I do not and will never own a fursuit.

[thekohser]

P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.

And Mike Godwin abruptly leaving his dream job of legal eagle for the Wikimedia Foundation was just a coincidence. Got it.

[Silver seren]

Five months later is abruptly? You would have more of an argument saying that he was let go because of the FBI seal incident, which did happen just before he left.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

P.S. I think it's quite obvious that the images in question were not child porn or the FBI would have actually done something. They disregarded Sanger's idiotic claims just like Wikipedia did. The only ones that took Sanger seriously was Fox News and...well, that speaks for itself.

Not so. There is "child porn" and there is "sufficient child porn in order to gain a successful prosecution".

There was child porn, artfully draw incest porn, underage vagine, hentai manga which crossed a moral line and (from memory) lots of enabling lists of book and movies with child sex in them but not enough in order to gain a successful prosecution at the cost it would have entailed. Who to hold responsible ... and where is the intent?

Ko-so is right. You're either being a jerk off over this or you having a jerk off over this. And, no, I am not religious, nor do I watch Fox. Life is not a simple binary dichotomy.

Most subjects could be covered by an encyclopedia according the actually importance of the subject but the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and it has no capable to editorial control over relative importances.

It is just intellectual bukkake ... which either definition you choose ... defined by the degree of mental obsession and state of irresponsibility and unemployment editors enjoy.

[lilburne]

CBT images are not that far away from the most innocuous searches.

Two clicks.
Three clicks.
Four clicks.

[EricBarbour]

Damn, this is funny. You have to admit that.

It only took TEN MONTHS to decide to create this article. Specifically, Jinnai, one of
the leading lights of the anime/manga wikiproject, was the guilty party.

He's also the most dedicated of the small group of nerds who guard the lolicon article with great justice.
Also quite fond of moe. Desu kawaii!

This part bears repeating, because it is so wonderfully smug:

On May 7, 2010, after Fox News had begun informing and putting pressure on dozens of companies that donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, they reported that the Wikimedia Foundation had begun purging its websites of thousands of pornographic images after co-founder of the Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Wales had been contacted by several of those donors.[16][17][18] Fox News also reported that, according to Wales, this was in preparation for a new policy regarding sexually explicit content.[17] However, Wales later denied the shakeup and that the reporter had ever contacted him.[19]

The purge led to infighting throughout the entire Wikimedia community.[18] Contributors complained that the deletions were "undemocratic and taken too quickly" and could result in images with legitimate educational value being accidentally deleted.[16] Fox News claimed that the situation quickly "devolved into an all-out war pitting board members against board members, and with top leadership sparring with lower level administrators."[18] However, the Wikimedia Fountain responded that, while discussions had become intense, it was a normal part of the process.[20]

On May 9, 2010, Jimmy Wales gave up some site privileges in response to protests by contributors who were angered over his deletion of images without consultation. He can no longer delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit protected content; however, he is still able to edit as a regular user.[16][18][21] Wales had previously asked that such images be removed. Some of the images he and other administrators deleted were restored as they were deemed to have educational value.[16] His stepping down was picked up by various media when Fox News quoted a source as saying that Wales' voluntary redaction of his administrative powers created "chaos" with no one clearly in charge.[18][19][20][22][23] The Foundation later denied those claims and posted a response on their blog about co-founder Wales' role in the Wikimedia Foundation. They clarified Wales' position as Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, noting that there were other executives with higher authority.[20]

Never get between a professional dork and his erokawa comics, eh?
Or he's gonna post something mean on Wikipedia, is that it?

[Peter Damian]

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Are there really parents out there who don't expect an encyclopedia to have entries pertaining to sex? That seems a little daft to me.

As a parent, I don't expect an encyclopedia to contain pornography. Any more than I expect an encyclopedia that contains articles about heroin to be selling heroin.

Good analogy, for the most part.

This whole "they should expect it" completely ignores two things: the explicit nature of the materials on WP, and how easily it can be found (even accidentally) with a few clicks. It's always been normal enough for kids (boys especially) to look such things up in a dictionary/encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it should be described and photographed/drawn out in pornographic levels of detail. These excuses are ridiculous and just annoying.

Even worse, a reference to "WP:NOTCENSORED" is usually a pretty good sign you're dealing with someone whose head is far enough up his ass to see his own molars. Usually a Randroid, but sometimes they're another variation of internet troll that WP leadership always seems to take seriously for some reason.

[Selina]

I really don't think it should be titled lolicon, but child pornography. Lolicon should probably be mentioned in the article, yes, since quite a few sources discuss the use of that term, but the vast majority of sources say child pornography.

At the very start of that article it actually outright tries to say that it was a 'mis'classification!!!

And yeah, I guess the anime nerdboys are all over it. So 99% of wikipedia editors then...
I've seen quite a few stuff with japanese names for stuff that actually already exists in English, I think cos of the same reason. In this case I think it's a cover word basically...