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

[gomi]

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

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: Thu 8th March 2012, 1:27am

[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!

[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!

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: Thu 8th March 2012, 6:01am

[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: Thu 8th March 2012, 7:57am

[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: Fri 9th March 2012, 5:49pm

[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!

[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?