Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Amory Meltzer]

Amusing, perhaps, but it would really serve no purpose other than to
be vindictive and pointed (everyone know Wikimedia is smarter than
Fox).  Besides, it'd be a copyvio.

~A



On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 19:39, stevertigo  wrote:
> David Gerard  wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
>
> Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first
> copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the
> errors?
>
> -Stevertigo
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[stevertigo]

David Gerard  wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/

Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first
copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the
errors?

-Stevertigo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

Yann Forget writes:


2010/5/10 Mike Godwin :
>
> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
> that
> > "Fox News was correct"?
> >
> > This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than
> an
> > actual outcome.
> >
> > --Mike
>
> Reading this
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge
> I think that you are wrong, and that David and others are right.
>

I will stipulate that if you consider the Register or blogs a "major media
entity," I'm wrong.  I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the BBC article
asserted that Fox News was correct.


--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva]

2010/5/10 Victor Vasiliev :
> On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
>> images exist at all on Commons.
>
> +1.
>
> I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice
> things in the article about FOX news (maintaining NPOV, of course).

May I cite that any angry editor doing this might be under conflict of
interest? (Albeit I think this is the most powerful counterattack
available :)

Anyway, I think they should be just sued. I don't know about US law,
but defamation is a criminal offense here. Also, I think their use of
the label "illegal content" might be a violation of some other law,
too.

PS: They talk about nude children, link in the title they say "illegal
content". But, are they talking about those kind of images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism ? There are nude children there,
but I see this kind of image on diaper commercials too, and some other
infant products. They are being REALLY mean.

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Thomas Dalton]

On 11 May 2010 04:15, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> BBC got the story from Fox. There would have been a Fox story regardless,
> and I wouldn't assume that BBC would not have picked up the more
> sensationalistic story that Fox was hoping to run.

The BBC heard about the story from Fox. They then went and did their
own research and produced a factually accurate article. It's not a
good article for us because the facts are bad - infighting always is.
Had Jimmy done nothing, the BBC may still have picked up the Fox story
but they would have still done their own research and produced a
factually accurate article. In that case, the facts would have been
reasonably good (most people are in favour of NOT:CENSORED) and we
would have ended up with a good article for us.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Yann Forget]

Hello,

2010/5/10 Mike Godwin :
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy  wrote:
>
>>
>> Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
>> was correct.  And until we purge our servers of every "graphic image,"
>> we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
>>
>
> Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
> "Fox News was correct"?
>
> This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than an
> actual outcome.
>
> --Mike

Reading this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:News_regarding_the_sexual_content_purge
I think that you are wrong, and that David and others are right.

Regards,

Yann

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton  >wrote:
>
> >
> > We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's
> > the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very
> > respected news outlet, unlike Fox) saying there is infighting in
> > Wikipedia which we wouldn't have had if Jimmy hadn't acted. I'm far
> > more concerned about the BBC article than I would be any Fox story.
> >
>
> BBC got the story from Fox. There would have been a Fox story regardless,
> and I wouldn't assume that BBC would not have picked up the more
> sensationalistic story that Fox was hoping to run.
>
>
> --Mike, who's been doing this media-ecology stuff for a couple of decades
> now ;)
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

"It's a profit deal!" ~The Jerk

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>
> We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's
> the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very
> respected news outlet, unlike Fox) saying there is infighting in
> Wikipedia which we wouldn't have had if Jimmy hadn't acted. I'm far
> more concerned about the BBC article than I would be any Fox story.
>

BBC got the story from Fox. There would have been a Fox story regardless,
and I wouldn't assume that BBC would not have picked up the more
sensationalistic story that Fox was hoping to run.


--Mike, who's been doing this media-ecology stuff for a couple of decades
now ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 May 2010 22:57, Mike Godwin  wrote:
>> Jimbo's actions were
>> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
>>
>
> I understand that you believe this.  But it depends on what you mean by
> "damage" and on what you mean by "no gain."  The thesis has been advanced
> here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of "the whole
> world." I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether "the whole
> world" would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story
> they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run
> -- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I
> don't find that proposition particularly credible.

We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's
the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very
respected news outlet, unlike Fox) saying there is infighting in
Wikipedia which we wouldn't have had if Jimmy hadn't acted. I'm far
more concerned about the BBC article than I would be any Fox story.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Delirium]

On 05/10/2010 02:57 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> Jimbo's actions were
>> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
>>
>>  
> I understand that you believe this.  But it depends on what you mean by
> "damage" and on what you mean by "no gain."  The thesis has been advanced
> here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of "the whole
> world." I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether "the whole
> world" would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story
> they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run
> -- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I
> don't find that proposition particularly credible.
>

Counterfactual predictions are always tricky, but my guess is there 
would at least have been less total news coverage. Almost all the news 
coverage is currently being driven by the power dispute and the question 
of whether we're giving in to Fox or not, not anybody actually caring 
about the original allegations.

See, e.g., this BBC News article: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm

Or the left-ish New Statesman (UK) calling our actions the result of a 
"Fox News effect": 
http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/05/sexually-explicit-images-news

-Mark


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Fred Bauder]

> Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated
> themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a
> given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would
> have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling "epistemic
> closure" -- all results will be interpreted as validation of cherished
> theories.

> --Mike

Yeh, and there is not a thing we can do about it, because under our
editing policies our article on Foz News will be very unpleasant reading
for them.

I do think we need to sort out some of these issues:

One: are any of them actually illegal?

Two: Do we need legal documentation with respect to pictures of people?

Three: Is there legal material we should not host?

Four: Should we offer a sanitized version for children? Or anyone else?

Fred


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Excirial]

Let us assume for a minute that would not have taken any action whatsoever.
Seeing Fox's habit of stretching and turning the truth upside down i would
not be surprised if the next headline would have been "Wikipedia or
Pedopedia? - Online encyclopedia endorses child pornography". Eventually the
Foundation would have to respond to this in some way, if only to counter a
web of lies being spun. Again, no matter what, we would have gotten a
negative response. Had Jimbo released a written statement or open letter to
the community the headline would have been "Failing Founders - Wikipedia
founder fails to take decisive action". Fox was out to burn and pillage, and
no matter what, they would have done so.

Also keep in mind that Fox news was actively pursuing large Wikimedia donors
with a clear intend to make them "Guilty by association" of child porn.
Hence, the truth is irrelevant in this case. No company wants to be
associated with anything negative and therefor Wikipedia itself could have
taken even more damage if we just headed to a shelter and waited for the
storm to pass. If i would blame Jimbo for something, it would be the
complete lack of communication and the removal of content which was in use
and valid. Had Jimbo kept his deletion spree to unused sexual images the
community response would have been more limited, while the breaking story
would have been largely the same.

Even so, we are starting to beat a horse that is dead and buried, with the
Jimbo discussion going round and round in circles. Jimbo relinquished his
founder flag and apologized. What else can we do? Ban him altogether? I
would say it is best to lay the Jimbo issue to rest unless someone suggest
that we need to take further actions - complaints won't change history.

~Excirial

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> Sure Mike, we were going to get bad press from Fox News no matter what
> we did. You're clearly right about that, and I don't think anyone
> would disagree with you. I'm not seeing how you go from that position
> to endorsing (or at least defending against criticism) the panicked
> response from Jimmy and the board. Reason would suggest that if we
> can't change the message from Fox News, urgent action that earns
> universal condemnation (as opposed to just condemnation from Fox) is
> the wrong way to go. Now, instead of just further bad press from Fox,
> we've got Jimmy giving up his founder status, a large group of angry
> contributors, *and* more bad press from Fox. How is that defensible,
> given that the outcome was predictable?
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

Mike Godwin wrote:

> Do you mean "the vast majority of persons" in "Earth's population"? I don't
> imagine much of "Earth's population" is even aware of the story, much less
> Jimmy's actions.

Of course not.  I mean "the vast majority of persons encountering
Jimbo's statements."

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Nathan]

Sure Mike, we were going to get bad press from Fox News no matter what
we did. You're clearly right about that, and I don't think anyone
would disagree with you. I'm not seeing how you go from that position
to endorsing (or at least defending against criticism) the panicked
response from Jimmy and the board. Reason would suggest that if we
can't change the message from Fox News, urgent action that earns
universal condemnation (as opposed to just condemnation from Fox) is
the wrong way to go. Now, instead of just further bad press from Fox,
we've got Jimmy giving up his founder status, a large group of angry
contributors, *and* more bad press from Fox. How is that defensible,
given that the outcome was predictable?

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>
> > Did you draw that conclusion?
>
> Your equivocation on this point is wearisome.
>

I don't know what you mean by "equivocation" here.  I'm not equivocating, so
far as I know. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by "this
point."


> Jimbo's actions were
> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
>

I understand that you believe this.  But it depends on what you mean by
"damage" and on what you mean by "no gain."  The thesis has been advanced
here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of "the whole
world." I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether "the whole
world" would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story
they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run
-- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I
don't find that proposition particularly credible.


--m
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

Le lundi 10 mai 2010 13:25:29, David Gerard a écrit :
> 
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
> 
> Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is
> counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from
> now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.

"Filtering" ourselves would be pointless if our goal was to appease Fox [1]. 
However, I think most of us agree that it has not been, is not and should not 
be our goal. As you say very well yourself, Fox is best left ignored.

Our goal is to facilitate the dissemination of free knowledge, and to provide 
the best experience possible to our readers, our participants and more 
generally our population of users.

In this context, I think it makes sense to research the needs or our users, 
and investigate possible ways to improve their experience on our websites. If 
a significant amount of our users wish to be able to filter out some parts of 
our content, we should do our best to empower them to do so, as a service to 
them.

[1] I'm having a hard time using the oxymoron "Fox News", so I'm just using 
"Fox".

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Product Manager, Multimedia Usability
Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[George Herbert]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin  wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy  wrote:
>
>>> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>>> that
>>> > "Fox News was correct"?
>
>>> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
>>> upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
>>> Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
>
>> Did you draw that conclusion?
>
>
> Your equivocation on this point is wearisome. Jimbo's actions were
> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.

I saw this whole thing starting and took the weekend off to avoid stress.

That said, now that it's fairly unavoidable -

As far as I can tell, major mainstream media coverage of the original
Fox stories was minimal.

Followup in major mainstream media to Jimmy's actions has been limited
at best - The BBC has a decent story:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm

...And the aforementioned Vanity Fair blog, and something on
Huffington Post.  There seems to be a widespread disbelief in the
underlying child porn accusation, other than at Fox.

In retrospect, attempting to some degree to read Jimmy's mind as of
four days ago, I think we "jumped" to try and get ahead of negative
press that did not develop.  I think it was reasonably predictable
that it wouldn't develop, but I understand why the mistake was made
there.


In response to the wider use/abuse of power issues; I think it's wise
anytime a very bold action is taken, to consider beforehand whether
the underlying issue is "worth it" - worth, if everything goes
completely sideways in the ensuing event / discussion, the loss of the
power or authority that was invoked to try and take the bold action.

I can't help but think that this was a tremendously worthless
underlying issue to go and melt the Founder Bit over.  That bit has
been extremely useful at times, used more carefully.

It also has dragged down a number of people's perceptions (within the
community) of "the board" and several individual members, again
extremely useful things we had to work with and have now lost.


One of the most important features and functions of a wider community
input is to calibrate responses.  Even if you do not change your
underlying opinion on an issue, if others say consistently or loudly
"This isn't worth it", then perhaps it's not worth being bold about.

It's not a function of leadership to ignore such input; it's sometimes
a function of leadership to override such input.

I think a bunch of people forgot the difference between override and
ignore, in the leadup to the events of Friday/Saturday, and we're all
much poorer for it.

I would like to say thanks to those who maintained AGF and fought to
seek and engage on community input throughout this.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

Noein wrote:

> Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
> it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
> they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
> indifferent or amused shrug from the rest of the world. Am I wrong?
> Should we really panic as the Board and Mr. Wales did? (ok, not panic,
> but feel the gravity and urgency of the situation?)

What's especially damaging isn't the absurd reporting from Fox News,
but our founder's proclamation that the reports are accurate.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[KillerChihuahua]

This is excellent advice from David. I could not agree more regarding Fox 
News; ignore them.  They won't go away, but any reaction feeds their 
nonsense.

- Original Message - 
From: "David Gerard" 
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:25 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless


> Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
> By Jana Winter
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
>
>
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
>
> Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is
> counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from
> now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Noein]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning
it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact:
they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an
indifferent or amused shrug from the rest of the world. Am I wrong?
Should we really panic as the Board and Mr. Wales did? (ok, not panic,
but feel the gravity and urgency of the situation?)

On 10/05/2010 18:36, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin  wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy  wrote:
> 
 Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>>> that
 "Fox News was correct"?
> 
>>> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
>>> upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
>>> Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
> 
>> Did you draw that conclusion?
> 
> 
> Your equivocation on this point is wearisome. Jimbo's actions were
> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6H4GAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LDYIIAJGqKCI2Y5HREzCzqfey5NEw
ykTST9dXNmwWVnTMp9V0OkJ4AG5P2Zp+FwYbqVqyRFQToAlMHq7FBbFpQ8sWkzHv
HwPxH/s31IGvpA7YsVv/k8+hOBjUoFqph0entHZ5em/04o3cj3ee2yQU/ufn4COZ
6LXJ7DFE3uyfsI2zspMHg3HsVpytLSYg+kCBwRyeZXgJLssS3e8ZU2huqWHfH9oE
PfOmqIPbOdovIvU7RAVAfxzY7J/lj9GUNPXhjUXWJ0R2d1sNJ0/dJSa9wnJt8euT
MnEs/aiNm3ugd8PRQoUnRP6vr7nSozpU3AXMqOPP5J6saTBWOhWV4CqoIKRbQmw=
=l87b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

Mike Godwin wrote:

> > > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
> > > that "Fox News was correct"?

> > I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
> > upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
> > Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.

> Did you draw that conclusion?

No.  I'm not referring to the tiny percentage of Earth's population
possessing a substantial degree of familiarity with the Wikimedia
Foundation and its work.  I'm referring to anyone taking Jimbo's
comments at face value, as I would expect the vast majority of persons
to do.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Gerard]

On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy  wrote:

>> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>> that
>> > "Fox News was correct"?

>> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
>> upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
>> Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.

> Did you draw that conclusion?


Your equivocation on this point is wearisome. Jimbo's actions were
ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[James Alexander]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

>
>
> Can you point me to major media entities
>
> --Mike
>
>
well for a slightly more entertaining news version you could see :
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/05/child-pornography-at-the-center-of-intra-wikipedia-warfare.html

I
particularly liked
 "Sanger took his
case
to
Fox News, a sort of people’s encyclopedia of dispassionate cynicism"

well then again this is the same group that wrote
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/whats-the-point-of-having-a-source-if-youre-just-going-to-pretend-it-says-something-else-wikipedia-editors-and-justin-bieber-fans-battle-for-control-of-justin-bieber-wikipedia-page.html
where
it decided that it had to put [sic] on “added move [sic] protection.” since
obviously we meant more (yes they did indeed add move protection).


James Alexander
james.alexan...@rochester.edu
jameso...@gmail.com
100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one
:)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy  wrote:

> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
> that
> > "Fox News was correct"?
>
> I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
> upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
> Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.
>

Did you draw that conclusion?


--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

> Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
> "Fox News was correct"?

I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading
Fox's subsequent reports on the matter.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[wjhonson]

The Fox article helpfully describes how to find those cartoon illustrations 
"depicting child sex acts"

Would anyone be interested in seeing how many times those pictures were viewed 
prior to Fox's article, and after the article came out?  "Dirty hands" is an 
effective legal counter-claim is it not?

W.J.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy  wrote:

>
> Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
> was correct.  And until we purge our servers of every "graphic image,"
> we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
>

Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that
"Fox News was correct"?

This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than an
actual outcome.


--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

Mike Godwin wrote:

> The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that
> there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have
> cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from
> this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had not intervened as he did,
> there would be no such story from Fox News.  My response is, if you think
> this, then you don't know Fox News.

No, that isn't my assumption at all.  I'm quite certain that Fox News
would have attempted to spin any response (or lack thereof) in a
manner injurious to the Wikimedia Foundation's reputation.

The key difference is that in the other scenario, it would have
continued to be their word vs. ours (with an opportunity to reach out
to responsible media and explain our position).

Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
was correct.  And until we purge our servers of every "graphic image,"
we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

David Levy writes:

>
> Agreed.  As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
> validation that its earlier claims were correct.  And because any
> "graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
> problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
>
> Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our
> innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt.
>
> It was an enormous mistake to respond to this "news" organization as
> though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity.
>
>
The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that
there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have
cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from
this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had not intervened as he did,
there would be no such story from Fox News.  My response is, if you think
this, then you don't know Fox News.

Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated
themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a
given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would
have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling "epistemic
closure" -- all results will be interpreted as validation of cherished
theories.

It is perfectly appropriate, it seems to me, for the community to
second-guess Jimmy (or me, or anyone else working to protect the projects).
But I don't think we should implicitly or explicitly embrace the theory
that, had Jimmy not intervened, there would be no story, or a better story.
 My personal view is that the story Fox News wanted to tell would have been
worse, but even if you disagree about that, let's not pretend there would
have been no story at all.



--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Victor Vasiliev]

On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.

+1.

I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice 
things in the article about FOX news (maintaining NPOV, of course).

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Nathan]

The moral here is that a panicked, poorly thought out and haphazardly
executed response to critical news coverage is exactly the wrong
response. It's failed here in every possible respect, tarnishing the
Foundation, its founder, its staff and the community. A few borderline
images have been deleted, but for what?

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[David Levy]

David Gerard wrote:

> Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
> By Jana Winter
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
>
>
> Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
> images exist at all on Commons.
>
> Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is
> counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from
> now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.

Agreed.  As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
validation that its earlier claims were correct.  And because any
"graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
problem and have made only a token effort to address it.

Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our
innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt.

It was an enormous mistake to respond to this "news" organization as
though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l