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: Mon 5th March 2012, 5:28am

[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: Mon 5th March 2012, 5:59pm

[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. 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: Mon 5th March 2012, 7:07pm

[dogbiscuit]

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. 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. 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

[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.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Tue 6th March 2012, 4:20am

[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.....