My read on the spin:

The damage is done. There have likely been millions of kids exposed to hardcore pornography by reading Wikipedia. This has been going on for years.

The site does not have any system built-in to prevent this. The fact that the founder had to personally intervene shows a gigantic organizational failure.

Mr. Wales' attempt at spin here might have worked well in the early days, but we're coming up on ten years now of Wikipedia. It is what it is, not a work in progress anymore. It's a porn repository that allows free access to children. It takes advantage of tax-exempt status and donations from big corporations too.

I think that really sums it up quite well.

Jon

Yea, because kids can't look at porn anywhere else.

In their schools, with content filtering measures in place, that may be true. And from a website with the goodwill halo of being tax-exempt, certainly true. Thank you for adding to this discussion, Tarc.

Do you really think that kids in schools actively seek out the Wikipedia pages as some sort of secret porn outlet? That they all huddle in the corner of the library, goto the Commons and giggle over every image in Category:Vagina ? Dunno if you're just old or out of touch, or if the former simply implies the latter, but I don't think you have much of a grasp on what teenagers do here and how they go about it.

I'm all for cleaning up the Commons of excess porn if it has no use in any wiki project, as it shouldn't be used as a simple image host, but this "think of the children" mentality is just a mask for getting what you want. You know it. I know it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and its self-styled "Community" exhibit a gross lack of editorial judgment and a denial of responsibility in every area. Calling attention to that fact has been a hard row to hoe, as they say. So, yes, it serves to begin with those areas that touch most poignantly on people's lives, for example, biographies of living people and people's sense that they have a say in the socialization of children. But none of that would get people's attention if they didn't really care about those things.

Jon Awbrey

And consider that now Jimmy Wales owns the results. He has pretended to have the authority to get rid of the porn. If it turns out not to disappear in the long run, and this turns out to be a major story with legs, think. If a long series of follow-up stories show that there are still boatloads of porn, and he isn't doing anything about it, then the press may conclude either (a) he was insincere, or (b) he has lost power.

There is a simple and perfectly accurate way to evaluate what's going on here: the nature of the Wikipedia community and its governance is now finally being exposed to the light of day. What do you think would happen if the general public knew what we all know? It won't be pretty. Hitherto, it's looked like there was somebody responsible in control of Wikipedia. Wales has tried to shore up his reputation as playing that function. It looked like Wikipedia was just enthusiastic and idealistic, and occasionally misguided--like a typical teenager. If journalists really dig into this story, and expose the Wikipedia community for the first time, the impression will change, drastically, for the worse.

[Modnote: All the content-free joke posts have been moved to a thread in the Tar Pit.]

Thank you for moving the stupid puns. The lower colon feels better already.

Which is why one hires a well paid, well connected PR lady to sustain.

That is the power of money and how money is self-generating once you get beyond a certain level ... certainly beyond an academic's financial level.

I had no idea as to how much porn there was on commons, until Killiondude posted a very useful link about a month ago. As I said; that "most viewed" -list was an eye-opener, indeed. (Jeez; just the names on that list are mostly NSFW)

And looking at Bad image list ..there are pictures there, which are not allowed used on any wikipedia-page, but still hosted on commons......why??

During his deletion spree on May 7th, Jimbo clicked the delete button 77 times (a small number of those might be redeletions of the same image during a wheel war). Out of those 77 deletion events, 48 were still relinked 24 hours ago, and 43 are still redlinked as of this moment. So the score now stands at 43 to 34 in favor of Jimbo's personal 1-day effort to delete those selected items. Is that a win for Jimbo, given that he threw up his hands after the first skirmish?


The nature of the WP community and its bizarre governance model is not easy to understand. It took me over a year to understand just how anachronistic it was. I reckon it will take a gifted journalist to translate an analysis like mine into something the public can understand.

Note that Larry, Somey, and a few others have begun to compile a list of references to otherwise obscure and technical reviews of Wikipedia's governance model, expressly for the purpose of making it easier for a determined journalist to write such a story. Has the time come to resume that project?

The bad image list is not a total ban, it just limits many of the images for use only on a specific page.

What part of Ignore All Rules is hard to explain?

And who do you think set that millstone in place as Wikipedia's cornerstone?

Jon

If young boys steal their mom's Victoria Secret magazine to do just that, then yes, they will look at Wikipedia for it.

Don't be ridiculous.

Yea, just like the Dads who still keep a stack of Playboys out in the garage, between the box of fishing tackle and power tools. This is the 21st century, Ottawa, still images have lost a bit of their charm. Do you still sneak peeks at the Sears catalog underwear ads?

Go hop on http://chatroulette.com, teenagers see more cock there than in Benjiboi's last birthday bash.

The part that says it only applies to the central cabal.

Right. The problem isn't IAR, which is nothing but the common-law rule of Public Policy. The problem is a selective failure to protect those who follow it, while at the same time either improving the "rules" so that the need for IAR becomes less frequent, and so that, simultaneously, errors in ignoring rules are addressed so that they don't repeat.

A good faith IAR action should never be punished, but if it shows serious ignorance or inability to understand the guidelines, the project might be protected. That principle was enunciated in my RfAr, and it was correct, as I noted at the time. But no inability was actually shown in my case.... rather that I did not automatically do what was being demanded by a cabal was taken as a sign of IDIDN'THEARTHAT. The fact was that when I escalated an issue through DR, I was confirmed, because I didn't do this if I didn't believe that consensus would back me up. But the very fact that I ended up escalating a few issues, with "many editors" screaming at me, was taken as disruptive and harmful. And that is the damage that an unrecognized cabal can do. It creates an appearance that an editor, who criticizes the cabal or a cabal member or cabal actions, is disruptive and unwilling to edit collaboratively.

Moulton made mistakes, I believe, but the community made a bigger mistake by banning him -- or allowing him to be banned. Guido is recently making some of the same mistakes, it's common among those who come to their positions. But a mature community would be able to handle this and channel it to productive use, normally.

Putting e-side the now-familiar x-cursions into Auto-Benighting Discourse, anyone with any practical experience or philosophical background whatever can see that Ignore All Rules is just another disguise for the Thrasymachiavellian Rule Of The Stronger (WP:ROTS).

Jon

Yah, it corresponds to the classic battle between God and Satan.

Most of the ones I checked are being used on other-language wikipedias. The description page on commons gives you a full list of pages using each file if you click through to it.

Each project maintains its own "bad image list". For example the german list appears to contain several items from commons deemed to be public-domain in the U.S. but not in Germany. Meanwhile the dutch, french, portuguese lists are empty.

I'll have you know, Lar, that my musical tastes are impeccable.
Misplaced Childhood is my fav Marillion disc. Straws is a good second, though, along with Script for a Jester's Tear.
I linked to Incommunicado in an earlier post but didn't do an embed. Fish's Coarse Line dance is what really makes this vid:

I, too, am a big fan of Marillion -- I even caught them in a rare U.S. appearance at World Cafe Live in Philadelphia. So important was my attendance, I suffered through a kidney stone passing out of my kidney into the ureter during the show.

(Is it blasphemy to admit that I prefer H to Fish?)

I'm soooo glad you were kind enough to share that, Greg!

There's no accounting for taste. Here, have a janitor at a Nirvana concert. Kobain used to be a janitor. Hello.

That is correct, but many were not used anywhere globally, or allowed used anywhere on en.wp. That includes the infamous Cumfac-picture, and several of the "vulva"-pictures. Now; AFAIK: images are only put on this list, at least on English wp, if they have been used to vandalize with...not because they are especially bad. Why on earth can you not delete those pictures? Are people afraid that Wikipedia would possibly suddenly miss some "vulva"-shots, or, heaven forbid: some cumshot for "educational purposes" tomorrow?

And mods! Could you please split off some "different tones" to another thread?

This morning, the number of remaining redlinked items has dropped to 38. Half of them remain redlinked, and half of them have now turned blue.

So we now have the half-life of Jimbo's deletions.

The half-life of his deletions is just 5 days.

Only nerds would implement half-measures with mathematical precision.

It's kind of pleasant, in sort of satisfying-justice sense, to see Jimbo laboring away, doing things which just get reverted and perverted, resulting in his having wasted his time. And all this due to his own policies.

Now, soon, Jimbo will sit there and have an empathetic epiphany: "Gee, if it's this bad for ME, I wonder what it's like for the average editor without my SuperPowerz?"




Nah, just kidding.

I would frankly be astonished if Jimbo ever has an epiphany.

I'll bet the person most pissed off by all this porn on Wikipedia is User:CG, formerly known as ''Cumguzzler".

If Jimbo has any sense of fairness he should give this individual his real user name back right away.

Many of the content filtering providers accept submissions from end users. For example at OpenDNS, people submit tags for domains and then everyone else votes if the tags are appropriate or not. At this moment, some of the tags being voted on for commons.wikimedia.org include pornography, sexuality, nudity and tasteless, while for wikipedia.org they're voting on sexuality, nudity and adult themes. All of those tags really do apply to vast amounts of content of both sites. It would be delicious to see WP/commons get increasingly blocked as the result of crowd sourced tagging.

OpenDNS basic is free, and there are advanced plans that run $10 per year per home or $2000+ a year for businesses and larger institutions.

One has to wonder if it made him think at all ... but I think he got what he wanted, a press release saying "Wikipedia Founder Deletes Massive Amount of Porn".

Like someone said, it did not make the mainstream media, nothing changed, the 6 members of the mob who are 'the consensus' asserted it, the formula did not change.

He was "seen to do something" by both sides. Delete 77 images and renounce founder powers ... it will go down history, and into speaking appointments as an noble act of social responsibility and martyrdom.

Wikimedians such as nihiltres, sarekofvulcan and prom3th3an have been voting at OpenDNS for some time. This explains why tags such as sexuality, nudity and adult themes have been voted down for a domain that carries articles such as Tit torture (T-H-L-K-D).

commons.wikimedia.org is up for a vote.

http://domain.opendns.com/commons.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia is clear, wikipediareview.com is blocked as a time waster.

As a blog added by tawker and as a forum by nathan who also tagged "priestsrapeboys.com" as a hate site.

Tawker also tagged wikipedia-watch.org Tasteless, Politics and Hate/Discriminationn

Sorry, Greg...I'm afraid it is. Nothing personal but DIE HERETIC!

Really, though, it's all good...H is cool too.
I actually prefer Van Hagar to Van Roth.




Hola.
Some days I'd rather listen to the Rutles than the Beatles or Weird Al instead of Nirvana.




As penance, I shall try now to guide this thread back on topic.

Are motives really important?
I'd argue that results are more so and motives of secondary concern.
People rarely admit, or even know, their true motives, aside from the basic, base banal ones (hunger, fear, lust, anger etc).
The more complex motives are far difficult to fathom and do make for interesting speculation.
But in the end they matter most to authors, artists, academics and attorneys than in the big scheme of things.

Note that users of the "domain tagging" service choose which categories of sites are blocked for them. Someone who doesn't use this service -- or doesn't choose to block sites with a particular tag -- will see no difference.

You people should be talking about Tawker (T-C-L-K-R-D) more.

Have a look at Tawker's OpenDNS userpage. Tawker is trying to tag any site he doesn't like as "porn" or "tasteless" or anything else that might upset people.

Message to Daniel Brandt: Tawker is trying to stab you in the back. Which is strange, as Tawker was once nominated for a "Straight Shooter" award by this very forum........

What?? "Screenshot May be Offensive"?

Tag :
Hate/Discriminatio... added by tawker
Lingerie/Bikini added by tawker ???

Okay, the "hate/discrimination" one is understandable from the point of the WikiKult...but "Ligerie/Bikini"? Daniel, where are you hidding the good stuff?

The Bikini Babes are in the famous pix of Cap'n Jimbo at the Wheel.

Or by general "levels" ... Pornopedia waltzes through the most safe of them with hardly a blush on her face.

From memory, wikipediareview.com gets stumped as a timewaster.

Yeah, but you can see those in the Sears catalog. That's hardly "adult" material...

Well, I suppose if OpenDNS also tags the Sears catalog the same way, at least they'd be using their curious tagging system consistently.

But why should OpenDNS be any more of a responsibly managed community than Wikipedia?

Digg and Slashdot also have moderation/voting systems that are easily abused. For that matter, Google's ranking system can be manipuated too. Do you recall the Google Bombs for "miserable failure"?

At school, if it has Wikipedia access, yes, actually I do ... and far beyond Category:Vagina.

I mean, at the Wikipedia, you do not even have to buy a subscription to Suicide Girls and they are far more intensely laid out. Excuse the pun.

I imagine for many here in their day it was line drawings in the Britannica and rude words in the Oxford English but at least the former would have led to the development of some imagination and scientific curiosity and the latter is curt in response.

At first I thought OpenDNS was a wonder but then when I found all the correlations to the Wikipedia Question, I became despondent. Definitely more of the same with the very same people, and well spotted Tartino.

I believe there is a very good and pure motive to wanting take porn off the Wikipedia for all the reasons stated above.

501 c and their supporters are not afforded benefits within society in order to host tug material.

My guess is: no.

For 'http://domain.opendns.com/wikipedia.org' the Pornography category, added by snowdrift, has been "Rejected". So, it is not pornography, it graphic imagery which is OK.

It would seem OpenDNS admins are out of the same mould, or is that mold, as the Whackopedians for whom "absolutely none" of the hard core photos on Wikipedia are porn.

Querying how, when and why wikipedia.org was rejected as a porn host, or how it could be re-assessed, the best response I could get was

----------------------

The examples given were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hodensack_(5).JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_V...s_vifs_-_29.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Felicia_Fox_6.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._in_photography
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...tion_(animated)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Penis


What gets me with these people, and it is typical of the mind set that rules the Wikipedia, is that they can spout absolute lies such as "half were either already taken down" without, seemingly, any sense of self-doubt or recrimination.

No, half have not already taken down.

On the web, I've found that the prominent use of the word "Open" is a signal for an environment of lies.