Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
Hoi, Commons as a project provides a service to any and all projects. It does have its own community but as Commons is a shared resource it is similar but not the same in its autonomy. This should be obvious . Thanks, Gerard On 13 March 2012 08:23, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts. Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this last year, is ludicrous. It's not at all question of burying one's head in the sand. It's a question of the communities solving their own problems. Serious injustices are a common occurrence in the communities, but a community is diminished when it has to run to mother-WMF's apron strings to solve its problems. Some communities will implement filters, others not; that's fine. Eventually, each community will find its own balanced solution. Ray __**_ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-lhttps://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
On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts. Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this last year, is ludicrous. It's not at all question of burying one's head in the sand. It's a question of the communities solving their own problems. Serious injustices are a common occurrence in the communities, but a community is diminished when it has to run to mother-WMF's apron strings to solve its problems. Some communities will implement filters, others not; that's fine. Eventually, each community will find its own balanced solution. Ray ___ 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 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late. We as a community don't agree on very much, and the image filter and related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would think, but I'd appreciate it. This is just so wrong. There neve was ideas on this from all sides. What there was to begin with, were very ham-handed attemps to try on maklng wikipedia more family friendly. Once those were soundly spanked, as they needed to be; we got more sophisticated approaches that amounted to the same. And again the community -- not me -- rose up as one man and said a thorough *NO!!!* to the whole thing. Please don't try to personalize something where the minority is trying to lead the majority astray... -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you, and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community? I see. ___ 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
On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you, and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community? I see. I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get up and leave. - 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
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you, and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community? I see. I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get up and leave. - d. I'm not sure where you saw that mentioned or how it's relevant to my exchange with Cimon. His phrase we the community is an example of an unfortunate problem in discussions about the Wikimedia community and movement; people tend to generalize their own views to the majority, to assume for themselves the weight of consensus, and then write as though they speak on behalf of the entire community when they clearly do not. It's simply common courtesy not to speak on behalf of others unless they have elected you to do so, and I wish more Wikimedians observed that courtesy. ___ 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
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: It's simply common courtesy not to speak on behalf of others unless they have elected you to do so, and I wish more Wikimedians observed that courtesy. I agree with this. Cimon's commented that the community responded as one man; I have not expressed an opinion either way on the image filter debate, and nor, I suspect, have the majority of the (highly productive) editors I interact with on en-wiki. Mike ___ 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
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you, and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community? I see. I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get up and leave. 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 ___ 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
On 03/08/12 3:23 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm sure someone can then say and therefore we must filter, that's asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e. insufficient fame. We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream. What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny of the majority. Hmm, so the argument here is to enforce the view of a minority on a majority? Enforcing the view of the minority is not in logic the alternative to the tyranny of the majority. It is the enforcing that is wrong in both instances. As I pointed out last time; if anything, that is a worse goal... Providing global access is a far far cry from enforcing a viewpoint (thank goodness), which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating here. So we agree that a lot of people here are advocating to provide global access. We are progressive, but that is another matter. All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader. Which reader? The users of the website. You know; our main focus! :) Hmmm! I was responding to desire of the reader in the singular. Your users is clearly in the plural, Now that I know that you meant users as a monolith, I can safely consider my question answered.;-) Ray ___ 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
On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts. Ray ___ 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
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote: The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts. Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this last year, is ludicrous. 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
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you search for devoirs (= homework) or vacances (= holiday) on French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=devoirsfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=vacancesfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view: Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response to innocuous search terms like homework, toothbrush and holiday? Hi Andrea I feel you conflate a bunch of moral and technical issues when you raise your points about this issue. I agree with Tobias on some of his observations about your posts. At the risk of MZ pointing out that I am repeating someone, I have felt that the category based search system and infrastructure for images is sorely broken. I don't think a lot of list members would disagree on that point, it needs some technical development, maybe a move to a tag-based system while we figure out a better system. The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. Now, when dealing with a particular community, the subject of relativity comes in. What you deem offensive might not be to others. There is no universal controversial content - there is graphic content, sexual content, disturbing content, but it is just content, the effect it has on the viewer is always relative. There are people who might deem any image of a woman not covered in a veil as offensive, there are a lot of people who have no problem at the sight of nudity, whether its breast or someone's bottom, it won't raise any eyebrows. Someone commented about graphic, medical images, how they can do without having them in articles, they also added that they should be there in case they do want to look. There is no universal, one filter fits-all approach as several others have pointed out. The subject of your previous post comes from this[1]. According to Imdb, appears to be a 5 minute french adult short from 1920. As Thomas pointed out, its content is probably illegal and possibly carries a prison term. While neither of us know about french laws on the subject, it is suffice to say it is a content issue and should definitely be marked and brought to the attention of a French admin to verify. There is no filter that can automatically detect if an uploaded images has nudity, graphic or even illegal content, it can only be viewed by someone, tagged and deleted, as I see it, that is the system we've always had, one that Youtube and others you mention also apply. If you can put aside the issue of graphic depiction and morality, do you think its existence needs to be acknowledged or wiped from the history of the world? My personal opinion on this subject aside, I do think there is a lot of development needed to just fix the image search system we have. As I said above, there is no universal controversial content. it is all content, the effect is has on a viewer is always relative. Regards Theo [1]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419683/ ___ 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
On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm sure someone can then say and therefore we must filter, that's asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e. insufficient fame. We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream. What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny of the majority. We are progressive, but that is another matter. All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader. Which reader? Does our hypothetical reader not have any responsibility in the way he interprets what he reads or says? Ray ___ 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
On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm sure someone can then say and therefore we must filter, that's asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e. insufficient fame. We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream. What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny of the majority. Hmm, so the argument here is to enforce the view of a minority on a majority? As I pointed out last time; if anything, that is a worse goal... Providing global access is a far far cry from enforcing a viewpoint (thank goodness), which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating here. We are progressive, but that is another matter. All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader. Which reader? The users of the website. You know; our main focus! :) Does our hypothetical reader not have any responsibility in the way he interprets what he reads or says? Yes. Which is my point entirely. Tom ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Phoebe, does this sound familiar? We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is our commitment. We're in it for the long haul. (From: Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia) Should this read, ...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial content that may upset some people. No. Re-read what it says there. _Can_, not _must_. We are there to freely provide knowledge _to those who want that knowledge_. If someone does not want some knowledge, we are not there to force them to read and watch it nevertheless. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late. We as a community don't agree on very much, and the image filter and related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would think, but I'd appreciate 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
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote: Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late. We as a community don't agree on very much, and the image filter and related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would think, but I'd appreciate it. This is just so wrong. There neve was ideas on this from all sides. What there was to begin with, were very ham-handed attemps to try on maklng wikipedia more family friendly. Once those were soundly spanked, as they needed to be; we got more sophisticated approaches that amounted to the same. And again the community -- not me -- rose up as one man and said a thorough *NO!!!* to the whole thing. Please don't try to personalize something where the minority is trying to lead the majority astray... -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: ... Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. Yes, this. All of this. Thanks, Kat; you are always more eloquent than I am :) As a board we've talked a lot about the most responsible way to comment as a community member vs as part of this consensus-driven, corporate body we call the board. We've talked about it because it's a real concern for many of us -- the dilemma hits you pretty much from day one, especially in our culture of community members talking about everything. Ideally, of course, you do agree with board decisions and how they're being carried out, but even in that case it's hard -- is someone speaking as themselves or for the board if they express support? And truth be told you never get taken as an individual once you join -- your opinions are always taken as those of a board member, whether you want them to be or not, and are tossed around politically in consequence; and you are responsible for what the WMF does whether you agree particularly with any individual action (or even know about them). If you say something critical, are those opinions going to get held against the WMF, or make someone's work more difficult, or make the work of the board more difficult, or somehow shut down community discussion? Is it safe to express an opinion if you're really not sure what the right thing to do is, or will exploring a misguided approach be held against you forever? All of those are questions that we struggle with in every conversation (but especially in really contentious discussions), which goes some way towards answering David's original question. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later to try something completely different. I would still love to see some way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come out of the current approach. Agreed. -- Phoebe ___ 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
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:30:27 -0500 From: Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status Message-ID: CAHqe4Lrnvy9QjWkUwcKG+eL8hZwA5bcoRhR5Lct+A=6115u...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later to try something completely different. I would still love to see some way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come out of the current approach. So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my part, nor on Phoebe's. -Kat Hi Kat, that's very refreshing to hear, though perhaps if it had come sooner there would have been less bad blood and the issue would be less significant in the current chapter elections. I was in the minority that thought it would be good to offer some sort of image filter to our readers, I even designed one that would avoid many of the problems of the Foundation proposal http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming/personal_private_filters I'm also quite supportive both of the principle of Least Astonishment (POLA) and also of fixing our search routines so that sexual images that also involve cucumbers etc don't automatically jump to the top of searches for cucumbers because of the popularity of sexual images. But POLA itself is something that we need to carefully define. I'm aware of one recent incident where an editor got qite a bit of hassle because an image that he used to have on his webpage was subsequently replaced by an image that I would describe as Not Safe For Home, let alone Not Safe For Work. I'd consider that a POLA breach, but presumably the person who replaced a cropped image of someone's
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting spectacular links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some mysterious reasons, this is no controversial content. Juliana 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument. The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in the cluster search you proposed. Given that the masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.) By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki of his own, where he says about himself, *Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from capitalist fuckers.* There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York Times readership would approve? Andreas http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_searchdiff=67902786oldid=67859335 Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like toothbrush. Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite effect: - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content pages http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top are adult media files. - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia (female) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female), followed by Category:Vulva http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva and Category:Female genitaliahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia . - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000 times a day http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg , compared to roughly 1 view a dayhttp://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG or less than one view a day http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg for actual images of toothbrushes. - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of Category:Toothbrushes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes, the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is primarily an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is included in Category:Shaved
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com: Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting spectacular links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some mysterious reasons, this is no controversial content. Hey Juliana, As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under controversial content; it's been defined that way in everything the board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue. best, -- phoebe ___ 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
Hi Phoebe, so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? Best Juliana 2012/3/7 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com: Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting spectacular links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some mysterious reasons, this is no controversial content. Hey Juliana, As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under controversial content; it's been defined that way in everything the board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue. best, -- phoebe ___ 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
2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com: so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of other people feeling they have a right to know things in general. Remember that (a) the right to know things in general does not come for free - it's a hard-won privilege - and that (b) when someone wants to suppress others' knowledge of things like inconvenient history[1], porn has historically been a handy stalking horse.[2] But of course, anyone who says this is obviously just a troll and troublemaker. - d. [1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad [2] e.g. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90367/music-industry-uses-net-neutrality-to-equate-p2p-with-child-porn/ ___ 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
on 3/7/12 12:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José at julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Phoebe, so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? Best Juliana 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com: Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting spectacular links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some mysterious reasons, this is no controversial content. 2012/3/7 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com Hey Juliana, As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under controversial content; it's been defined that way in everything the board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue. best, -- phoebe Phoebe, does this sound familiar? We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is our commitment. We're in it for the long haul. (From: Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia) Should this read, ...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial content that may upset some people. Are you concerned about the Project's image or its content? All knowledge - or none. Marc Riddell I will be intelligent enough to know that little can be known; inquisitive enough never to stop learning, and perceptive enough to understand that all things and all events contain infinite possibilities. - MR ___ 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
On 3/7/12 6:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José wrote: so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? I don't think anyone's proposing that the information should be removed from articles; just that there should be some tools available in people's account settings. I personally would be happy to turn off images in medicine-related articles by default for my own browsing, because they aren't greatly informative most of the time, and just pointless gore--- if, for example, I'm reading about skin diseases, another generic open sore photo doesn't add a lot of content to my reading. Of course, I would like photos available for inspection when I do need them. -Mark ___ 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
Juliana, You simply don't understand where I am coming from. I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter. Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult material. And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator, and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists. Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in mainspace: http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, There is no problem. But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate. The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or being given something called the Hot Sex Barnstar (NSFW) for their efforts: http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirtoldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibooldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuckdiff=67910238oldid=67910067 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in this article: http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2story_id=13283 The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee. Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That is a problem. WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it from moving towards the mainstream of society. Andreas 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting spectacular links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some mysterious reasons, this is no controversial content. Juliana 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a porn website is
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it from moving towards the mainstream of society. I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely mainstream Wikipedia is. - 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
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it from moving towards the mainstream of society. I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely mainstream Wikipedia is. The answer being; Not much at all. Tom ___ 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
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely mainstream Wikipedia is. The answer being; Not much at all. We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm sure someone can then say and therefore we must filter, that's asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e. insufficient fame. We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream. We are progressive, but that is another matter. All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader. Which has been my consistent criticism of this debacle. Tom ___ 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
Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: Juliana, You simply don't understand where I am coming from. I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter. Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult material. Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never an example from your side considering other topics. What i see is the constant lobbying for a safepedia, abusing children and crying mothers as the main argument, while praising flickr, youtube and co. as the ideal that we all should follow. Im absolutely not convinced that this is the right way for knowledge. Not a single website that has this kind of service is dedicated to spread education or knowledge. It's quite the opposite. And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator, and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists. I hope that they have the balls to follow the good examples. What are good examples? * Equal treatment of content and readers (including children), as most libraries in the world do. * The internet. A place for the free mind and everyone that wants to share knowledge and to spread the word. * Diversity in viewpoints, but acting with respect and tolerance. Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in mainspace: http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, There is no problem. But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate. The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or being given something called the Hot Sex Barnstar (NSFW) for their efforts: http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirtoldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibooldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuckdiff=67910238oldid=67910067 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in this article: http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2story_id=13283 He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence however. To me it looks like a witch hunt and i would create and give you a barnstar for that. The reason this barnstar (hot n sexy) exists is also very simple. It exists because people like you only rage against sexual topics and that again, again, again, zZzZz, again and again. It is boring and a nuisance for the active community that wants to curate Commons. The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee. Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That is a problem. WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never an example from your side considering other topics. You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these are the discussions where you choose to hang out. He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence however. The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M And the raging, biting and attacking continues, while constructing arguments from single examples. Great job as usual. Sorry, but your efforts piss me off and i see nothing good coming out of it. In a recent discussion i thought that you would be able to have a little bit of insight, but i was terribly wrong and I'm ashamed of you and your words. You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea, which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one developer commenting on your proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now. http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is not getting the attention it deserves. 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
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. definetely more interesting things to talk about? Like how to arrange the deckchairs maybe? I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). It is extremely hard not to get sarcastic here. So I will just say nothing. We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. If you really think so. I am genuinely dissapointed. I will not elaborate on that in a public forum. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? With the composition of tne board very out of touch of with the community, it is very hard not to to dismiss this as a pure irrelevance. I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. This bit I understand wholly. But there is that awkward bit that you are not just a part of it, but a *trustee*. You are not elected there to be a part of a job-mill. You are out there to fight the good fight for the rest of us.The one thing that you never should have held compromisable is not any single issue or multipe issues you would not compromise over but that you there not representing your values, but your understanding of ours, the community. Those are the standards you should judge yourself by, as should others. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later to try something completely different. I would still love to see some way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come out of the current approach. I am sorry but I think I can't let you off quite this easily. In what universe was it a viable starting position? It, and all ideas remotely like it never got any traction before. Maybe if you think We got nowhere before on this, we can only do better. As to being surprised by searches. Talk to google image search. Do you think they have mastered the art? So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my part, nor on Phoebe's. I have to say I agree. Perfectly consistent. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
Am 08.03.2012 01:53, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never an example from your side considering other topics. You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these are the discussions where you choose to hang out. This is very unconvincing, because it's very easy to keep track on steps of other users. ;-) He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence however. The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M And of course there is not a single clue why it happend or what he did wrong. That's like putting someone into the jail while holding a trial excluded from the public, while the prosecutor and judge are the same person(s). Reminds me on the middle age. You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea, which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one developer commenting on your proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now. I don't see it as solving a problem. I see it as way to improve Commons while not making the anti porn lobby raining down useless and stupid deletion requests on Commons or proposing and pushing even more idiocy in resolutions, like that sexuality related images have to be hidden in special categories and are forbidden to show up in more general categories, even if they contain the subject. The most useful part of a comment I found in the search discussion on Commons was: Category:Photographs of non-kosher mammals standing on the hind legs with the visible genitalia made in Germany with a digital camera during Rammadon at night http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is not getting the attention it deserves. Andreas I don't complain. I made a proposal. Someone might pick it up and make something out of it. If no one does, then i won't cry. But if someone comes up with such stupid tagging, rating or hiding approaches and implements it, then I will leave the project alone, since it would be already dead at this point. nya~ ___ 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
Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply. Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any of them and you must really search very intense to find this. I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching and collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als evidence of controversy, but maybe I am too much busy with writing Wikipedia articles. But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will thank you every day for this. Juliana 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com Juliana, You simply don't understand where I am coming from. I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter. Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult material. And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator, and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists. Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in mainspace: http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, There is no problem. But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate. The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or being given something called the Hot Sex Barnstar (NSFW) for their efforts: http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirtoldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibooldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuckdiff=67910238oldid=67910067 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in this article: http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2story_id=13283 The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee. Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That is a problem. WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it from moving towards the mainstream of society. Andreas 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies and shot heads a much more terrifying
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
If you search for devoirs (= homework) or vacances (= holiday) on French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=devoirsfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=vacancesfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view: Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response to innocuous search terms like homework, toothbrush and holiday? Andreas 2012/3/8 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply. Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any of them and you must really search very intense to find this. I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching and collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als evidence of controversy, but maybe I am too much busy with writing Wikipedia articles. But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will thank you every day for this. Juliana 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com Juliana, You simply don't understand where I am coming from. I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter. Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult material. And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator, and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists. Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in mainspace: http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, There is no problem. But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate. The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or being given something called the Hot Sex Barnstar (NSFW) for their efforts: http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirtoldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibooldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuckdiff=67910238oldid=67910067 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in this article: http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2story_id=13283 The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee. Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
MZMcBride wrote: Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from you, Phoebe, and some of the other big voices who have commented here. And I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping ease some tensions and create better dialogue. :-) Andreas: I think http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems now. Sorry for double-posting, I forgot one more thing. There's been a bit of discussion on Wikipedia Review about this topic, for anyone interested: * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37054 Larry Sanger also weighed in on his blog: * http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-porn-filter-doa-and-a-proposal/ MZMcBride ___ 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
If you search for devoirs (= homework) or vacances (= holiday) on French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=devoirsfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARechercheprofile=imagessearch=vacancesfulltext=Searchsearchengineselect=mediawiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv Uh. So in a not insignificant part of the world that video is illegal. Including the UK where it carries a 2 year prison sentence for possession or distribution. I don't know of specific case law in France but given their recent spate of obscenity laws, and the fact that Zoophilia was outlawed in 2004, it seems likely. In the US distributing it is often illegal to states where it is outlawed - although no one has tested this in terms of internet distribution (at least not to my recollection). It certainly fails the Miller Test. There are certain countries where this will get you a death sentence. Tom ___ 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi MZ and all -- Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set. Kicking ti into the long grass, or at least over the electoral cycle. And it sounds like twisting the economic knife over funding structure. Do not forget though that though the economic obstacles against forking Wikimedia are (on paper) prohibitive, the legal ones that guarantee forkability are iron-cast. And if you lose the community, you are just guardians of an editable, but un-edited encyclopedic venture. A Nupedia on wheels. I want the Wikimedia to succeed. If there is anyone who doubts that, please raise their hand. But I know it cannot succeed by going back on its own original ideals. So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our original proposal has been requested. I love corporate speak. has been requested Er, Who requsted what? And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a need for clarification. It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out. Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late. I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of the controversial content resolutions (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content), though much less controversial, are also quite important! Very true. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
Andreas: I think http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems now. MZMcBride I just suggested to rename the file [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pumpdiff=68036007oldid=68034622]. Please discuss there. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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
On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our original proposal has been requested. I love corporate speak. has been requested Er, Who requsted what? And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a need for clarification. Passive voice is indeed problematic here. What would that sentence look like in active voice? - 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
Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like dignifying any of that with engagement. I am not sure where and in what context these accusations were made (I can not recollect seeing any of them), but in any case, be it on wiki or on a mailing list, each of them is uncivil, constitutes a personal attack, and must be stopped by a warning, a block or by putting the offender on moderation. This level of discussion is absolutely unacceptable and can not be tolerated in our community. BTW I think that being an open-minded and able to change opinions is a very appropriate quality for a Trustee. Cheers Yaroslav PS I have whatsoever no relation to the elections as I am not a member of any Chapter. ___ 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say actually, I disagreed with what I was doing. You can't claim your views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the representing. That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it. I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that. What stopped you from voicing your qualms? Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like dignifying any of that with engagement. And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything! So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including can't we please find something more important to argue about?!). Oh well. Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons search :) Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp. You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? Wait ... so you're saying that the two board members whose terms run out this summer are hoping that if they keep shtum about the image filter for the next 15 weeks, people will forget that they voted for it twice during their last term, and they'll get another term on the board? ___ 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
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show, to keep the public money coming in. Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp. You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? - d. Just for the record, not sure where you got voted twice... There's been one vote on each resolution. And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. all best, -- phoebe ___ 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
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?) This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from other types of monarch, etc. The beauty of clustering search engines is that they are not prejudicial. And fundamentally improve functionality of the search. Enable to find what you personally *want* to find, rather than merely making it easier to exclude what someone wants to make it easier for you to not find you don't want to find. And it is done by the search engine software (at least in theory), not people who are not the person browsing. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Just for the record, not sure where you got voted twice... There's been one vote on each resolution. And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. all best, -- phoebe I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my sympathy. However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a Multimedia search for male human in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=500offset=0redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human Or try just human: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=500offset=0redirs=0profile=imagessearch=human Is this the Wikimedia view of what humanity is about? There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and who say they will fork if anything changes. Let them. 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
On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? Just for the record, not sure where you got voted twice... There's been one vote on each resolution. The first was the vote on the resolution: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The second was to send a letter affirming the board still considered the resolution a good idea: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/253393#253393 We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment: we let that resolution stand unchanged. You were also the chair of the Controversial Content Working Group that *wrote* the resolution. And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. I raised it as one, here. If you do not support the image filter, you have given *no* sign that I have seen of not supporting it before your statement for this selection of a board member by the chapters. You appeared (from your actions) to support it before, you claim not to support it now. I believe it is relevant to note this. - 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
Am 05.03.2012 19:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my sympathy. However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a Multimedia search for male human in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=500offset=0redirs=0profile=imagessearch=male+human Or try just human: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=500offset=0redirs=0profile=imagessearch=human Is this the Wikimedia view of what humanity is about? There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and who say they will fork if anything changes. Let them. Andreas Sometimes your a little bit to persistent. I know that this results are giving a wrong image, but you brought them up in at least 20 discussions until now. But this won't solve anything. How about some active work to come up with possible solutions? No, I don't mean solutions that would perfectly fit your own demands. It is way more productive to search for solutions that the opposition could agree with, while also achieving the own goals at the same time. You saw my search proposal and you where in favour of it. But it wasn't only you who could agree with this proposal. The opposition would be happy with it as well. That is the way to go. But to find such solutions you will need to respect other opinions as well. Back to your human examples, I have simple explanation. This images, how controversial they are, get good treatment by the community. Yes even a deletion request is good treatment in this case. There are much more people involved with this files then with many other files. This leads to very direct descriptions, better categorization and so on. Now we must not wonder that the search is so happy to represent the current results. Such actions make them even more popular and give them a high rank inside the results. You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument. nya~ ___ 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
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and who say they will fork if anything changes. Let them. You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the actual work* won't put up with it. However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public. This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered according to your vision. If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales! - 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
Hi David, On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? Just for the record, not sure where you got voted twice... There's been one vote on each resolution. The first was the vote on the resolution: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The second was to send a letter affirming the board still considered the resolution a good idea: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/253393#253393 We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment: we let that resolution stand unchanged. That's actually explicitly not a vote -- as in, we agreed not to re-vote at the October meeting. We did agree to postponing development, however, as I noted above; and a re-vote is likely on the table for the spring. You were also the chair of the Controversial Content Working Group that *wrote* the resolution. That is true. And I supported the resolution we wrote, felt that we did good work to try to come to a consensus between pretty widely divergent points of view, and proposed the resolution to the other trustees. There were plenty of reservations at the time, from me and others; hence all the language about principles. However, we thought what we proposed could work. After publishing that resolution, we had the referendum and (even more) thousands of pages of discussion, and after all that I am convinced by the arguments that the image hiding feature specifically is not an especially appropriate or useful thing to do. Surely that is not a terrible or outlandish conclusion to reach; one might argue for the benefit in keeping an open mind. And if I am not mistaken, we are now closer to being in agreement on the issue, which does make one wonder why you're hassling me over it. I'll note that still, there are plenty of good arguments on both sides, and I don't think all the trustees are in agreement about how to proceed; as this thread shows, there is still plenty of interest on both sides as well. I took on chairing the controversial content group because I wanted to help the board find consensus on a tough issue, not because I wanted CC to become the defining issue of my term. If I thought at the beginning that is what would happen, frankly I wouldn't have volunteered to do it. And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. I raised it as one, here. If you do not support the image filter, you have given *no* sign that I have seen of not supporting it before your statement for this selection of a board member by the chapters. Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. I have all along personally thought that both sides of the issues had merit but that there were strong principles we needed to adhere to, which is a thread that shows up in the resolution. You appeared (from your actions) to support it before, you claim not to support it now. I believe it is relevant to note this. Sure. If there's a place to note what one thinks about something, why not a candidacy statement? And I will note, in turn, that the questions to the candidates so far seem to indicate what the chapters representatives care most about this election, and it's mostly finances and related -- if I were, as you imply, only hypocritically trying to win over hearts and minds for the election I think I would be focusing on that! regards, -- phoebe ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and who say they will fork if anything changes. Let them. You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the actual work* won't put up with it. However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public. This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered according to your vision. If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales! As I understand it, Andreas is pushing for better editorial control and search rather than censorship or a fork. The issues Andreas has highlighted are real; how to fix them is the open question. Renaming files is a _good_ immediate solution for some of the search problems. Andreas has also raised the option of clustered search, proposed by Niabot, and other ideas the community are coming up with as alternatives. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
David Gerard wrote: However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public. This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered according to your vision. If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales! An appeal to then why don't you fork! is pretty lame, David. Much as people hate censorship and love free content, if you've looked at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems, you know there's an actual technical issue here. I refuse to believe that a search for forefinger leading to animated GIFs of someone masturbating is a not a bug. Search needs improvements. Commons needs improvements. This is hardly surprising or controversial. And, I'll note: there have been proposals to address the technical issue at Controversial content/Brainstorming and elsewhere. Including a neat idea involving groupings and hierarchical tagging for media. Please, let's not resort to why don't you fork! when there aren't even dumps of the images on Commons, much less one of the other 1,000 issues you'd hit when trying to fork a Wikimedia wiki. Be reasonable, please. MZMcBride ___ 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
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say actually, I disagreed with what I was doing. You can't claim your views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the representing. What stopped you from voicing your qualms? - 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say actually, I disagreed with what I was doing. You can't claim your views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the representing. What stopped you from voicing your qualms? I don't know about you, but I can imagine personally disliking the concept of an image filter while simultaneously believing a resolution in favor of it was the best position for the Board to take at the time. Compromise isn't a four letter word. I'd say its more odd to call phoebe out for taking all the criticism on board; surely that was the intent of many of the critics, including yourself? ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:07 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? ... And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. I don't understand. Three candidates, including yourself have mentioned image hiding/filtering in their statements. You are the only board member seeking re-election, and your statement says you support rescinding [a] part of our resolution. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Candidates -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say actually, I disagreed with what I was doing. You can't claim your views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the representing. That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it. I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that. What stopped you from voicing your qualms? Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like dignifying any of that with engagement. And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything! So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including can't we please find something more important to argue about?!). Oh well. Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons search :) best, Phoebe p.s. John, I misunderstood what David was referring to about it being an election issue -- When I said that I meant that board reconsideration of the resolution was raised independently of the election; it's not meant to be timed for political reasons, as I thought he was implying. Yes, of course, I did bring this topic up in my statement. ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons search :) Can you get a developer to provide us with some feedback on Niabot's proposal? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons The discussion that led to this proposal was here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument. The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in the cluster search you proposed. Given that the masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.) By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki of his own, where he says about himself, *Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from capitalist fuckers.* There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York Times readership would approve? Andreas http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_searchdiff=67902786oldid=67859335 Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like toothbrush. Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite effect: - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content pages http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top are adult media files. - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia (female)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female), followed by Category:Vulvahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva and Category:Female genitaliahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia . - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000 times a dayhttp://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg, compared to roughly 1 view a dayhttp://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG or less than one view a dayhttp://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg for actual images of toothbrushes. - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of Category:Toothbrusheshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes, the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is primarily an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is included in Category:Shaved genitalia (female)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female), which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of Commons, and it is also part of Category:Female masturbationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation, the 10th most popular of all Commons categories. - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing figures will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing cucumbers, but these high
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and who say they will fork if anything changes. Let them. There has never been a genuine confrontation on Wikimedia sites between people for radical change and those defending the Status Quo Ante. There have however been (and I trust will ever be -- A status quo) of people who feel there can be no give and take. And those who philosophically accept they will never be happy with things as they are on Wikimedia, but think the attempt to bridge the gap itself is a worthwhile effort, for all that follows from it, the joy and the misery. Sometimes it is difficult to know who those people are, because there is a natural ebb and flow. Land now, waters rushing in the next moment. Between those sides you have to decide where your boat belongs. Aground and unmovable, or afloat and moving with the waves that wash back and forth. You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the actual work* won't put up with it. However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public. This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered according to your vision. If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales! - d. Let's be fair. Wikimedia could well turn more prudish, and that would be quite natural. But forcing a boat up a mountain, rather than letting it sail isn't quite what we do here. Yet oceans with geological timescales yield high grounds where you can find ancient seafloors, and (if you can imagine it?) high mountains with sharp edges, are turned into rounded curves by the glaciers passing over them, with time. If you are right about the direction Wikimedia should move, all you have to do is wait. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the board acts as a corporate body. Phoebe I do understand the reticience to speak as a person when one is a part of a body that represents a consensus reached by highly diplomatic speach. The only downside (I will not say, a flaw.) with this is that it does not deter hyperbole, but encourages it, in descriptions of what the consensus driven body is doing. There has to be some modus operandi that could alleviate that. One would be that when there is a genuine consensus, people in the consensus driven body speak with one voice and take collective responsibility (some would say blame) for that, even if they have minor differnces. But if the concensus is only achieved through very elusive means, the body could decide (as a consensus) that people be allowed to express their own private views to the public with a slight latitude. Even parliamentarism acknowledges such terms as free votes that allow decisionmakers to let their constitutients have a genuine sense where their representatives hearts truly lie. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ 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
Andreas Kolbe wrote: Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?) This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from other types of monarch, etc. Interesting. :-) I encourage everyone to take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming and chime in. Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening. Where are we on this? I still don't have an answer to the status question, but I did bang out a few thoughts on editorial judgment and the Wikimedia community here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editorial_judgment. MZMcBride ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. What happened with implementing software related to controversial content? There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the current status of the project? Is it still a project? (If there's a project status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.) Hi MZ and all -- Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set. So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our original proposal has been requested. It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out. I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of the controversial content resolutions (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content), though much less controversial, are also quite important! -- phoebe, as WMF secretary ___ 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
phoebe ayers wrote: [snip] It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out. Yes. Implementing even basic image tagging would be helpful, I think. Lots of low-hanging software development fruit on Commons. I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of the controversial content resolutions (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content), though much less controversial, are also quite important! Thank you for the detailed response. :-) I think having the resolutions published is great, but I also think having an index with statuses of high-level projects would also be good. Somewhere where outsiders and insiders can look and answer a question about the status of X (e.g., controversial content software implementation) without needing to bother Board members. ;-) Any ideas on implementing something like that? I'm not sure how many other high-level projects there are, even. Any guidance on this would be great and appreciated. MZMcBride ___ 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
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi MZ and all -- Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set. So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our original proposal has been requested. It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out. I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of the controversial content resolutions ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content), though much less controversial, are also quite important! Thanks, Phoebe. But think about it – if we're not doing the image filter, why should the community bother to do anything else you've urged in these resolutions? None of it has been happening so far. Model releases? Consent of people depicted in private settings? All I see, almost one year after these Board Resolutions were put up, is business as usual, with people happy to muddle along, Flickrwashing as before. Who cares if the account disappears off Flickr a week later? As for POLA, the principle of least astonishment that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his pushing POLA on Commons. To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them. I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show, to keep the public money coming in. Wikimedia critics like Greg Kohs confidently claimed over a year ago that nothing would ever come of the Harris study, that any proposed action that would bring Wikimedia in line with all the other top websites like Google, YouTube and Flickr would be delayed, postponed and watered down until finally, hopefully, everybody would have forgotten about it. It is beginning to look like he may yet be proved right ... and that everybody, from Robert Harris to all the various volunteers who made a good-faith effort to come up with a system that might work, wasted their time. 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
On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show, to keep the public money coming in. Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp. You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? - 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
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What happened with implementing software related to controversial content? There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the current status of the project? Is it still a project? (If there's a project status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.) MZMcBride P.S. I'm always fascinated by cases where there's an extreme contrast between how seemingly innocuous the search term is and how explicit the search results are. I think my current favorite case is the search for forefinger on Wikimedia Commons. More examples always welcome at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?) This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from other types of monarch, etc. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons for Niabot's own write-up of his proposal. (If you are unfamiliar with the Commons search problem please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems as well as the recent Fox article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/24/why-is-wikipedia-still-doling-out-porn/ And see (note that this link is NSFW) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=imagessearch=forefingerfulltext=Search for what the forefinger search looks like in Wikipedia.) Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening. Where are we on this? 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
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening. Where are we on this? Hopefully nowhere from the development standpoint, because where are nowhere from the community standpoint. Inaction and not sticking to time-lines is fine by me in this case. I for one prefer letting sleeping dogs lie. -- ~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
