Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: It's not me who's uploading hundreds of pornographic media onto Wikimedia sites. There are places for porn online, just like there are places for online poker, and amateur digital art. I have no problem with any of them. But listen to yourself – you are accusing me of prudery because I say that as a tax-exempt educational website we should be handling porn and other explicit content as responsibly – no more, no less – as Google, YouTube or Flickr. Are the adult media sharing groups in Flickr populated by prudes? I don't think so. But are they in favour of abandoning the Flickr rating system? No. Are Google right-wingers? No, and they happen to be among our biggest donors and benefactors. Your porn must be fre stance puts you into a fringe corner from the perspective of which the entirety of mainstream society looks like a bunch of dastardly right-wing prudes. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited statements. Your assumption is that we have to sacrifice neutrality to please a audience that doesn't want to see that it is looking for... Great start! No one said that porn must be fre (double quote, because of a quote of a quote, that never was a quote to begin with). All we said was: Every content has to be treated as equal. What you do is just anti porn lobbying and nothing else. It is not for the benefit of the project. Your current aim is to change/sacrifice the original goal of the project, while arguing that it would be for the benefit to reach more users. But what is price of a book that only contains what you already know or want to see in the context of education? It's not worth a Cent. It's a failed mission. nya~ (said the cat as it faced a palm) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited statements. Your assumption is that we have to sacrifice neutrality to please a audience that doesn't want to see that it is looking for... Great start! Neutrality is following what our sources do. All we said was: Every content has to be treated as equal. That is a fringe position in the real world. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Am 13.03.2012 10:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 13.03.2012 03:39, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: No. I'm not accusing you for prudery, but for making wrong cited statements. Your assumption is that we have to sacrifice neutrality to please a audience that doesn't want to see that it is looking for... Great start! Neutrality is following what our sources do. ¹ Depends on: * the definition of sources * the neutrality of the sources itself * the context of do in respect to clould do/might do/supposed to do/... * the target audience (to entertain vs to educate themself) All we said was: Every content has to be treated as equal. That is a fringe position in the real world. That is the encyclopedic viewpoint of the world. Even so it might not be achievable, it is the aim. nya~ (said the cat leaning at window) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
I'm speaking as an individual here, not on behalf of my chapter. The problem that the English language Wikipedia has that the German language one does not, is that we cover countries as far apart as the libertarian micronation of 'Sealand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand' in the UK, the deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India, which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries. Andreas raises some good points, and while I don't agree with him /completely/, I do feel that the current filtering system on the English projects is simply not working as well as it could. That said, it's not an insurmountable problem, and I think most of the global community (all languages included) would agree that a easier-to-use filter system is needed. I don't think it's helpful to use comparisons to the bible belt or English speaking attacks. My wife is from the bible belt and is really quite reasonable (most of the time...) Richard Symonds On 10/03/2012 11:26, Möller, Carsten wrote: I would like it the other way: Why should some minorities force a worldwide project to obay their point of view regarding images or other controversial content? Why should the german speaking community collect funds for this filtering and hiding project? Every community is free to discuss which image is shown on a article by article basis. And they have the option to use some tricks to show a certain image only after a second click, if they find that approbiate. The German, Austrian and Swiss chapters would love to keep their share of the fundraiser in Europe and have a separate eurocommons without the sometimes funny attacks by english speaking users on some images. That would also avoid taxproblems on this side of the pond. I think our financial stake is big enough. Ist not the biblebelt or Hisbollah or Syria or Putin to dicte the rules. Carsten Möller Hamburg Germany One thing I've never understood is why the Board wants to allow the German Wikipedia community to dictate what will be done in Commons, English Wikipedia, and dozens of other projects that the German community has no stake in. If the German Wikipedia does not want the image filter, then let them opt out. They genuinely need it less than most other projects ? they serve a culturally homogeneous language region whose standards are very progressive, and they are generally more judicious in the way they use explicit content. But it is not fair to say that other projects can't have the image filter, just because the Germans don't want it, or need it. German Wikipedia has Pending Changes, English Wikipedia doesn't. Did we tell the Germans that because English Wikipedia gave Pending Changes a thumbs-down, it was verboten for the Germans to have it? It's not the German community's place to dictate global WMF policy. Andreas -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6493 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message ___ 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India, which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries. You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie, are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of people being allowed to know stuff in general. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Hoi, When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is not knowable is over the top. Thanks, Gerard On 12 March 2012 14:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India, which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries. You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie, are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of people being allowed to know stuff in general. - 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is not knowable is over the top. The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of people who don't want knowledge to be general anyway. You have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1 , right? They aren't concerned with images, or indeed text, on Wikipedia - they're concerned with it existing *anywhere*. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Hoi, That is beside the point. You are against the proposal that is on the table. It is a compromise. Now the fact that some want much more and you want much less makes it a compromise. So what gives, why do you refer to the opposing point of view ? Why not accept the proposal as is and leave it at that? Thanks, Gerard On 12 March 2012 15:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is not knowable is over the top. The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of people who don't want knowledge to be general anyway. You have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1 , right? They aren't concerned with images, or indeed text, on Wikipedia - they're concerned with it existing *anywhere*. - 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=20redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human So unless I want to see 100 dicks and arseholes I am somehow against * knowledge*? http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=20redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+humanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=20redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human You got this the wrong way round, mate. All those pictures of dicks and arseholes are preventing people from learning what they might want to learn, because actual worthwhile knowledge is crowded out by all the dicks and arseholes. There is more things to learn about the human male than that it has a dick and an arsehole. If I have to wade through 100 photographs of Wikimedians' dicks and arseholes to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Study_of_a_Male_Figure_Seen..._-_Sir_Peter_Paul_Rubens.png then perhaps we have our priorities slightly back to front. Contrary to what some Wikimedians seem to think, what their dicks and arseholes look like from a distance of 30 centimetres is not the most important piece of knowledge to share with the world. On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India, which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries. You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie, are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of people being allowed to know stuff in general. - 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Hoi, In the Netherlands we have our own bible belt.. it is not exclusive to the USA Thanks, Gerard On 12 March 2012 16:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. ___ 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase bible belt with anti-Americanism? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On 12 March 2012 16:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: ... You got this the wrong way round, mate. All those pictures of dicks and arseholes are preventing people from learning what they might want to learn, because actual worthwhile knowledge is crowded out by all the dicks and arseholes. There is more things to learn about the human male than that it has a dick and an arsehole. If I have to wade through 100 photographs of Wikimedians' dicks and arseholes to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Study_of_a_Male_Figure_Seen..._-_Sir_Peter_Paul_Rubens.png then perhaps we have our priorities slightly back to front. ... 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. Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not filtering all images of body parts. 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. Fae ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase bible belt with anti-Americanism? Marc Riddell Because of the context in which it is used in image-filter / controversial content discussions. It's a pejorative throw-away, a way for people to dismiss concerns about controversial content as the province of parochial Americans clutching Bibles. Even when the phrase bible-belt isn't used, it's a pretty common tactic in this debate to ascribe support for the image filter to a sort of moral imperialism or lack of a cosmopolitan ethic. On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, In the Netherlands we have our own bible belt.. it is not exclusive to the USA Thanks, Gerard Nevertheless, I suspect when the phrase is used in controversial context discussions, it is not meant to refer to the Netherlands. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
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. Just a second here – this search http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=20redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human doesn't give you any explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at all in the first 100 matches? Really? The 1st image is a close-up of a urinating penis. The 5th image is a close-up of a penis. The 8th, 9th and 11th image are close-ups of penises, one of them erect, and one with a hand grabbing the scrotum. The 13th image is a close-up of an arsehole. The 14th image a close-up of a scrotum. The 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th are images of erect penises. And so on. I haven't mentioned any of the other nude images. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Just a second here – this search http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=20redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human doesn't give you any explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at all in the first 100 matches? Really? The 1st image is a close-up of a urinating penis. The 5th image is a close-up of a penis. The 8th, 9th and 11th image are close-ups of penises, one of them erect, and one with a hand grabbing the scrotum. The 13th image is a close-up of an arsehole. The 14th image a close-up of a scrotum. The 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th are images of erect penises. And so on. I haven't mentioned any of the other nude images. Andreas I think I misread Fae, who was probably referring to his search for male figure when he said he did not have a problem having to wade through sexual images. Apologies. :) Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
??? Hubertl Am 12.03.2012 16:43, schrieb Nathan: The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. ___ 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Am 12.03.2012 18:02, schrieb Marc Riddell: on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The bible belt phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's best ignored, along with the people who use it. Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase bible belt with anti-Americanism? Marc Riddell he forgot to say Antisemitism. h. ___ 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
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%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=malefulltext=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_problemsdiff=prevoldid=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=Pedophiliadiff=3557747oldid=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
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the following: Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it. ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending of words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true. nya~ (said the lobby cat and repeated itself again) Am 12.03.2012 20:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Faefae...@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%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=malefulltext=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_problemsdiff=prevoldid=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=Pedophiliadiff=3557747oldid=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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the following: Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it. ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending of words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true. Indeed. Andreas' posts bring this to mind: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/the_right_wings_pornography_of_resentment/singleton/ There's concern, and then there's lasciviating morbid fascination. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
Andreas, I am not going to express an opinion on the case you reference, this is still a hot debate, particularly on Commons, and I do not believe there is a stable consensus yet. I certainly have no personal interest in being continually dragged into penis wars or be forced to read criminal allegations about contributors, though had I not been maliciously harassed by an off-wiki group you are associated with, I might have been a Commons administrator at this point and had more useful influence on these policy related issues. The question is more complex and contentious than I find email is a suitable medium for, and any way forward must cater for how our international projects can collaborate on policies that protect free speech (under a USA definition) and enable continued free access for the widest possible educational good in as many countries as possible. I have already proposed you take advantage of our UK open a board meetings to talk openly with us about collaborating on how the Wikimedia community can work positively on this area, such as encouraging positive debate to mature the Commons community and policies. I suggest you prepare for that by talking the issues over with the Wikimedia UK CEO. We are listening and remain open, I hope you can approach this subject with a similar frame of mind, realizing that such change will only happen slowly. It would help discussion if those involved could avoid the drama of inflammatory attacks or fueling those whose main interest appears to be destruction rather than improvement in their ambitions to make a name for themselves by tilting at the WMF or, far worse, the open movement itself. Thanks, Fae ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the following: Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it. ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending of words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true. Indeed. Andreas' posts bring this to mind: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/the_right_wings_pornography_of_resentment/singleton/ There's concern, and then there's lasciviating morbid fascination. It's not me who's uploading hundreds of pornographic media onto Wikimedia sites. There are places for porn online, just like there are places for online poker, and amateur digital art. I have no problem with any of them. But listen to yourself – you are accusing me of prudery because I say that as a tax-exempt educational website we should be handling porn and other explicit content as responsibly – no more, no less – as Google, YouTube or Flickr. Are the adult media sharing groups in Flickr populated by prudes? I don't think so. But are they in favour of abandoning the Flickr rating system? No. Are Google right-wingers? No, and they happen to be among our biggest donors and benefactors. Your porn must be fre stance puts you into a fringe corner from the perspective of which the entirety of mainstream society looks like a bunch of dastardly right-wing prudes. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
I would like it the other way: Why should some minorities force a worldwide project to obay their point of view regarding images or other controversial content? Why should the german speaking community collect funds for this filtering and hiding project? Every community is free to discuss which image is shown on a article by article basis. And they have the option to use some tricks to show a certain image only after a second click, if they find that approbiate. The German, Austrian and Swiss chapters would love to keep their share of the fundraiser in Europe and have a separate eurocommons without the sometimes funny attacks by english speaking users on some images. That would also avoid taxproblems on this side of the pond. I think our financial stake is big enough. Ist not the biblebelt or Hisbollah or Syria or Putin to dicte the rules. Carsten Möller Hamburg Germany One thing I've never understood is why the Board wants to allow the German Wikipedia community to dictate what will be done in Commons, English Wikipedia, and dozens of other projects that the German community has no stake in. If the German Wikipedia does not want the image filter, then let them opt out. They genuinely need it less than most other projects ? they serve a culturally homogeneous language region whose standards are very progressive, and they are generally more judicious in the way they use explicit content. But it is not fair to say that other projects can't have the image filter, just because the Germans don't want it, or need it. German Wikipedia has Pending Changes, English Wikipedia doesn't. Did we tell the Germans that because English Wikipedia gave Pending Changes a thumbs-down, it was verboten for the Germans to have it? It's not the German community's place to dictate global WMF policy. Andreas -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6493 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
