On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than > "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art > and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches. > No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact, > carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave > me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at > all. >
Well, if you just search for "male", you still get lots of penises and sphincters. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male&fulltext=Search Bear in mind that this is what students get in schools, too. > Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not > filtering all images of body parts. I agree that a better search engine is part of the answer. Niabot made an excellent proposal (clustered search) a week ago, which is written up here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons But I don't think it obviates the need for a filter, which is frankly standard even in mainstream *Western* sites that contain adult material. > Commons has over 10,000,000 > images, having several hundred images of human genitals is not to be > unexpected, or a reason to give up on collaboration and turn to > extremes of lobbying multiple authorities and newspapers with claims > that the WMF is promoting paedophilia with the side effect of fuelling > well known internet stalkers to harass staff and users. > We have had a consistent problem with pedophilia advocates in Commons becoming involved in curating sexual images. It is a problem when an editor with a child pornography conviction that was prominent enough to hit the press, who did several years in jail and was deported from the US, is so involved in our projects. It is a problem when that editor's block is promptly endorsed by the arbitration committee on English Wikipedia, but is equally quickly overturned in Commons. It is a problem if a Commons admin says, when being made aware of Sue Gardner's statement about Wikimedia's zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia advocacy, that "You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried to install a image filter and was bashed by us." http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68051777 By the way, that statement of Sue's has now been removed from the Meta page on pedophilia: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=3557747&oldid=3546718 Now, English Wikipedia has for some time had a well-defined process for such cases. They are not to be discussed on-wiki, but are a matter for private arbcom communication. That is sensible. However, Commons has lacked both an arbitration committee, and any equivalent policy. (There are efforts underway now to write one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection) This being so, there has been no other way to address this in Commons than to discuss it on-wiki, and it is a problem if an editor who posts evidence on Commons proving that the person in question has continued to advocate pedophilia online quite recently, and well after their release from prison, is blocked for "harassment", while the editor in question remains free to help curate pornographic material. But that is Commons for you. I am afraid that to most people out there in the real world, it will seem absolutely extraordinary that an educational charity lets someone with a child pornography conviction curate adult material, while its administrators block an editor who points out that the person has continued to be an open and public "childlove" advocate online. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l