Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Brion Vibber]

El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió:
> While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
> certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
> Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
> high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
> the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf
> my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my
> mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on
> a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an
> important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions.

Spiffy! Sounds like it needs more lovin' and attention, I forgot it was 
even there. ;)

> There is
> a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still
> gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config
> change; it's in bugzilla :D]

Found it in the general sea of issues and have moved it to Rob's work 
queue. :)

-- brion

) where people concerned with such things
> can generate appropriately-censored content for children.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
>> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
>> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
>> being created *by adults for adults*.
>>
>> That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the
>> educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational
>> material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make
>> something that won't freak out their parents.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Ray Saintonge]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
>
> We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
> the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
>
> A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
> old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
> wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
> was because he couldn't speak the queens english
> properly. Really!
>
>   

Hmm! Some would argue that ever since Noah Webster no American speaks 
the Queen's English properly. :-)

Ec

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Birgitte SB]

Your really didn't address my question.  Why do you think WMF resources are 
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by 
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for 
*any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things 
unacceptable?  

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor  wrote:

> From: Aryeh Gregor 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons 
>  and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't
> censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is
> absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB 
> wrote:
> > I think our efforts would be better focused making all
> of our content better suited for re-usability by different
> tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which
> tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing
> stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of
> the content.
> 
> It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy
> of
> categories for the use of private parties who would like to
> censor
> their own Internet access, or that of those they have
> responsibility
> for.  The way to go would be neutral designations
> like
> "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures
> containing
> breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so
> on.  This strictly
> adds value to the project.
> 
> Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by
> default.
> Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced
> with a link
> explaining why they were blocked.  Clicking the link
> would cause them
> to display in place, and inline options would be provided
> to show all
> images in that category in the future (using preferences
> for users,
> otherwise cookies).  Users could block any categories
> of images they
> liked from their profile.
> 
> To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by
> disabling only very
> gory or otherwise really disgusting images by
> default.  More
> reasonably, we could follow every other major website in
> the developed
> world, and by default disable display of any image
> containing male or
> female genitalia, or sex acts.  Users who wanted the
> images could,
> again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss
> of
> information -- which is, after all, what we exist to
> provide.
> Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual
> liberation.
> 
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
>> that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
>> http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
>> will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
> 
> I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one
> at the bottom of this page:
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae

I'm glad someone saved it :) However in some cases, number of images in 
such a gallery may be too big to merge it with a page on a similar topic.

> I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work
> specialising in galleries.

Commons is not an encyclopedia. Galleries of this type do not exist on 
Commons, and do not really belong there.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Peter Jacobi]

Hi David, All,

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
> filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
> negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
> have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
> work themselves.

This is just a sub-item of a pet peeve of mine. Why aren't there
successfull mirrors for
reading Wikipedia? There is obviously room for enhancement in the
Wikipedia reading
experience, and a customizable parental control would be only one of
possibilities. If
done well enough, users would tolerate mild advertising in exchange
and so it seems
to be a valid business model.

WMF should even be thankful for lessening the load to their servers.


Regards,
Peter

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[John Vandenberg]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>>
>>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
>>> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
>>> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
>>> should be presented by the images.
>>
>> In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to
>> having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to
>> be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very
>
> And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied.
>
>> surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image
>> gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing
>> off the authors' photography skills. ;-)
>>
>> (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,
>> e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will
>> decide to remove them after this email...)
>
> I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
> that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
> http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
> will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.

I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one
at the bottom of this page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae

I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work
specialising in galleries.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>
>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
>> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
>> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
>> should be presented by the images.
> 
> In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to  
> having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to  
> be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very  

And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied.

> surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image  
> gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing  
> off the authors' photography skills. ;-)
> 
> (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,  
> e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
> Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will  
> decide to remove them after this email...)

I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans 
that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to 
http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you 
will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:

>>
>> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how 
>> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply 
>> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find 
>> objectionable.
>>
>>
>> 
...
>> Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest 
>> hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents 
>> wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but 
>> would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're 
>> drawings.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this 
>> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for 
>> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently 
>> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct 
>> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which 
>> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely 
>> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>>
>> 

Do you have no shame?

Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?

We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?

A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
was because he couldn't speak the queens english
properly. Really!


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Michael Peel]

On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long  
>>> time. The
>>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
>>> have
>>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
>>> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
>>> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
>>> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>>>
>>> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.
>>
>> They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location
>> (Wiktionary and Commons).
>
> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>
> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
> should be presented by the images.

In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to  
having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to  
be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very  
surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image  
gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing  
off the authors' photography skills. ;-)

(BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,  
e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will  
decide to remove them after this email...)

>> Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only
>> reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they
>> were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...
>
> People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they  
> have too
> little information, even while they are about a valid topic.  
> Sometimes,
> stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic.
> Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar
> topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually  
> lost. All
> of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would  
> have stubs.

All I can say to that is that it's a great pity if that happens...

Mike


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia  
>> have
>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
>> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
>> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
>> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>>
>> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.
> 
> They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location  
> (Wiktionary and Commons).

Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to 
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.

Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image 
galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic 
value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that 
should be presented by the images.

> Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only  
> reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they  
> were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...

People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they have too 
little information, even while they are about a valid topic. Sometimes, 
stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic. 
Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar 
topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually lost. All 
of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would have stubs.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Michael Peel]

On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia  
> have
> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>
> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.

They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location  
(Wiktionary and Commons).

Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only  
reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they  
were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...

Mike

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Here is the other great straight line. Let's hope they aren't
> parallel. We have indeed claimed to be in the business of
> deleting recipes. That was a stupendously dumb thing.

Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The 
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia have 
ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and 
image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every 
encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image 
galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.

I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
>> enough
>> to know that censorship is a dead issue.
>> 
>
> It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. 

Thanks for two straight lines in a good posting. That is the first one.

> I might find gifting
> someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
> comprehensive information about sexuality, it doesn't belong in a general
> purpose encyclopedia intended and promoted for the use of a young world
> wide audience.
>
> As to censorship, we censor and delete dictionary definitions and recipes
> for God's sake; that is how Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not works.
>   
Here is the other great straight line. Let's hope they aren't
parallel. We have indeed claimed to be in the business of
deleting recipes. That was a stupendously dumb thing.
We should just quit. The long and very silly argument
over why recipes on wikipedia are bad came down to
"Nobody can tell me how to make the best cookies."
As I have said repeatedly; saying that a recipe can
never be a NPOV entity, even when it is very
general, and not going to such idiotic
minutiae as describing how to make
a "Very very dry martini." except
in very very specific cultural
circumstances, is silly.
Point blank silly.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Nikola Smolenski]

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting.  Most of its editors find sexual
> images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppression as
> harmful, "sex-negative", based on obsolete religious practice,
> whatever, so they're allowed.  Look at David Goodman's message earlier
> for a good example of this.  Sexual images aren't allowed because
> Wikipedia isn't censored, they're allowed because the predominant view
> of sex among Wikipedians is that it's a recreation like any other.
> 
> If you think Wikipedia's imagery is not censored, please explain why
> [[Goatse.cx]] does not have an image of its subject matter.  Such an
> image would clearly fall under our fair use criteria, wouldn't it?
> It's definitely essential for understanding of the material.  But how
> long do you think the image would last if someone added it?  I'd be
> surprised if no one tried to add it before, in fact.  I'd also be
> surprised if anyone could even upload the image without having it
> speedy deleted as vandalism and getting a warning that they'd be
> blocked if they did it again.
> 
> [[Nick Berg]] is primarily known because of the beheading video
> released about him, but his article chooses for some reason to depict
> a still from the video where he's still alive, rather than depicting
> the act of beheading itself.  I would argue that the beheading part of
> the video is very educational.  Most people's ideas of what beheading
> is like come from the movies, and are terribly inaccurate.  Do you
> think anyone would object if I added a picture of the knife passing
> through his neck up at the top?  Somehow I think so.
> 
> Can anyone name me even *one* article where a gruesomely gory
> photograph is prominently displayed, in fact?  There have been edit
> wars even on more moderately disgusting articles, like [[Human
> feces]], with no clear "Wikipedia is not censored!" resolution.  Why?
> Because people don't like looking at images that are disgusting.  Real
> surprise, huh?  But Wikipedia isn't censored, right?
> 
> Sexual images are not kept because Wikipedia is not censored.  They're
> kept because the Wikipedia community thinks that people *shouldn't*
> find them disgusting.  This does not serve our readers well and is
> definitely not neutral.  We absolutely should accommodate readers who
> would be viscerally disgusted by images on the site.  There are people
> out there, probably a billion of them or more, whose reaction to an
> image of autofellatio would be comparable to their reaction to an
> image of a beheading or Goatse.  Saying "screw you" to all these
> people rather than attempting to improve the utility of Wikipedia for
> them is obnoxious, antisocial, and contrary to our mission.
> 
> Anyone who claims that it's too hard to draw a line of what should be
> censored and what shouldn't is demonstrably wrong, because Wikipedia
> has done it for more than eight years, and no one seems to have even
> *noticed* that the line *exists*.  Trying to claim we can't censor
> sexual images because it's a slippery slope is not only bad logic, but
> grossly hypocritical.
> 
> There is *no* loss in educational value if explicit sexual images are
> not displayed inline.  None.  Prominent links can be provided for
> readers who are interested.  On the other hand, there is a significant
> loss if parents want to stop their children from reading Wikipedia
> because it contains offensive imagery.  The way our mission points is
> therefore clear.  Are we going to try to be the best educational
> resource we can be, or impose a sexually liberal ideology on all our
> readers whether they like it or not?

Sorry for quoting in full, but I have to. This is the best overview of 
the situation I have ever read.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[private musings]

Re : This from brion;

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

>
>  Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
> the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been
> marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the
> restricted search and get at everything if you want it.
>
> .Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>
> -- brion
>
>
This is exceptionally heartening from my perspective - I believe a very
simple and straightforward system like this would help a great deal. It is
of course a great strength of wiki-processes to be able to allow large
groups of volunteers to maintain appropriate image descriptive tagging which
could power such a system - I've said before that I'm a little surprised
that it's not embraced as a good way forward - but either ways, it's a good
thing in my book.

I believe this would be a valuable (and necessary) software addition from
the foundation - is it really a fairly simple technical implementation,
brion? others?

cheers,

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Mike.lifeguard]

While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf
my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my
mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on
a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an
important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions. There is
a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still
gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config
change; it's in bugzilla :D]) where people concerned with such things
can generate appropriately-censored content for children.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of 
> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being 
> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily 
> being created *by adults for adults*.
> 
> That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the 
> educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational 
> material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make 
> something that won't freak out their parents.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Mike.lifeguard]

Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons.
Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual
content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is
wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That
said, a more utilitarian argument may be necessary where we have
contributors who reject these basic values.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:13 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
> > I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> > manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> > Karma Sutra.
> 
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
> 
> 
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Mike.lifeguard]

Obviously not; here we are discussing it. One wonders if we actually did
learn any lessons during the Enlightenment...

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:04 -0400, The Cunctator wrote:

> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
> to know that censorship is a dead issue.
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
> 
> > Hoi,
> > As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> > It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> > other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > 2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
> >
> > > Fred Bauder wrote:
> > > >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> > > >> very best,
> > > >> oscar
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > > > right thing.
> > > >
> > >
> > >  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> > > around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> > > you seem to appreciate.
> > >
> > > The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> > > "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> > > view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> > > conditions for which there is no proven link.
> > >
> > > Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> > > be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> > > right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> > > this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> > > consequences, and just do what is right.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > >
> > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
> 
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Marcus Buck]

David Gerard hett schreven:
> (c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki -
> nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of
> neutrality.)
>   

 does still work by the way.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 Sage Ross :

> No, I'm talking about something like actively including meta-data that
> would make possible filtered.en.wikipedia.org or the like (as Robert
> Rohde described), not imposing any limits on the way readers currently
> view Wikipedia.


So, put together something that uses the category system to do just this.

Except you'd need to make a really, really convincing case that this
is something the Wikimedia Foundation should be actively promoting,
even as far as hosting.

(c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki -
nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of
neutrality.)


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Sage Ross]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Sage Ross :
>
>> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
>> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
>> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
>> community is long overdue.
>
>
> Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions.
>
> What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting the contents of
> the live working site.
>

No, I'm talking about something like actively including meta-data that
would make possible filtered.en.wikipedia.org or the like (as Robert
Rohde described), not imposing any limits on the way readers currently
view Wikipedia.

In fact, it wouldn't even have to be directly incorporated into
editing; it could be a separate layer of meta-data, such that all the
filtering happens through a "flag offensive content" interface at the
filtered wikipedia site; users interested in a filtered site would do
all the flagging and it could even be fine-grained so that
objectionable content could be sorted by type.  So, for example, the
pearl necklace photo would get flagged as sexual, Muhammad cartoons
would be flagged as Islam-related, etc.

-Sage

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross  wrote:
>
> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
> community is long overdue.

I agree only so long as such outreach does not interfere with my
more-libertarian-than-the-general-population use of the website.

-- 
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[George Herbert]

My two cents:

I don't think we have external pressure to do this.  Web filtering companies
which filter by keyword are aware Wikipedia contains a lot of those naughty
keywords.  Anything they think they need to do about it they already do.
OTRS hasn't been seeing parental complaints, we haven't seen negative
coverage in the press, etc.

We don't make a huge deal about it, but I think that "the world at large"
knows what we do and is OK with it.

The internal enwiki community is very anti-censorship, in particular
anti-think-of-the-children censorship.  It's one of the core NOT listings.

I understand that we have many who disagree.  But I think that the community
has spoken, and that the Foundation wouldn't do any good interfering, and
that there's no cause to.  If the community were threatening its own good or
long term survival by being that uncensored a case could be made for
intervention.  But we seem to have found a working line that essentially
everyone agrees to that pedophillia and child porn are out, the rest is all
basically ok, and that these limits are legally and socially defensible
internally and externally.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Aryeh Gregor]

Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures
of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is absolutely censored from
images its editors find disgusting.  Most of its editors find sexual
images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppression as
harmful, "sex-negative", based on obsolete religious practice,
whatever, so they're allowed.  Look at David Goodman's message earlier
for a good example of this.  Sexual images aren't allowed because
Wikipedia isn't censored, they're allowed because the predominant view
of sex among Wikipedians is that it's a recreation like any other.

If you think Wikipedia's imagery is not censored, please explain why
[[Goatse.cx]] does not have an image of its subject matter.  Such an
image would clearly fall under our fair use criteria, wouldn't it?
It's definitely essential for understanding of the material.  But how
long do you think the image would last if someone added it?  I'd be
surprised if no one tried to add it before, in fact.  I'd also be
surprised if anyone could even upload the image without having it
speedy deleted as vandalism and getting a warning that they'd be
blocked if they did it again.

[[Nick Berg]] is primarily known because of the beheading video
released about him, but his article chooses for some reason to depict
a still from the video where he's still alive, rather than depicting
the act of beheading itself.  I would argue that the beheading part of
the video is very educational.  Most people's ideas of what beheading
is like come from the movies, and are terribly inaccurate.  Do you
think anyone would object if I added a picture of the knife passing
through his neck up at the top?  Somehow I think so.

Can anyone name me even *one* article where a gruesomely gory
photograph is prominently displayed, in fact?  There have been edit
wars even on more moderately disgusting articles, like [[Human
feces]], with no clear "Wikipedia is not censored!" resolution.  Why?
Because people don't like looking at images that are disgusting.  Real
surprise, huh?  But Wikipedia isn't censored, right?

Sexual images are not kept because Wikipedia is not censored.  They're
kept because the Wikipedia community thinks that people *shouldn't*
find them disgusting.  This does not serve our readers well and is
definitely not neutral.  We absolutely should accommodate readers who
would be viscerally disgusted by images on the site.  There are people
out there, probably a billion of them or more, whose reaction to an
image of autofellatio would be comparable to their reaction to an
image of a beheading or Goatse.  Saying "screw you" to all these
people rather than attempting to improve the utility of Wikipedia for
them is obnoxious, antisocial, and contrary to our mission.

Anyone who claims that it's too hard to draw a line of what should be
censored and what shouldn't is demonstrably wrong, because Wikipedia
has done it for more than eight years, and no one seems to have even
*noticed* that the line *exists*.  Trying to claim we can't censor
sexual images because it's a slippery slope is not only bad logic, but
grossly hypocritical.

There is *no* loss in educational value if explicit sexual images are
not displayed inline.  None.  Prominent links can be provided for
readers who are interested.  On the other hand, there is a significant
loss if parents want to stop their children from reading Wikipedia
because it contains offensive imagery.  The way our mission points is
therefore clear.  Are we going to try to be the best educational
resource we can be, or impose a sexually liberal ideology on all our
readers whether they like it or not?

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
> I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better 
> suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work 
> out exactly which tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror 
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks 
> are in place for general re-purposing of the content.

It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy of
categories for the use of private parties who would like to censor
their own Internet access, or that of those they have responsibility
for.  The way to go would be neutral designations like
"Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures containing
breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so on.  This strictly
adds value to the project.

Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by default.
Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced with a link
explaining why they were blocked.  Clicking the link would cause them
to display in place, and inline options would be provided to show all
images in that category in the future (using preferences for users,
otherwise cookies).  Users could block any categories of images they
liked from their profile.

To begin with, we could preserve the s

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Chad :
> Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are:
>
> 1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07)

Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Chad]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
> If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already 
> been created?
>
> I am serious here.  Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a 
> third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror?  Our content is supposed to 
> be easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so 
> why isn't it happening?  What can we do to make the content more easily 
> re-usable for different purposes?
>
> I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better 
> suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work 
> out exactly which tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror 
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks 
> are in place for general re-purposing of the content.
>
> Birgitte SB
>

Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are:

1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07)
2) That amount of data is impractical to import to the target database.

From personal experiences, it is nearly impossible to work with the
enwiki dump.
I've been trying to get the last good dump imported to a database as an exercise
in futility for several months now. My experiences thus far have been mostly
annoying.

Trying to fork needs a good base of data to start from (even if it is
2 1/2 years old).
If you can't start there, it's nearly impossible, as importing page-by-page is
entirely impractical and probably impossible (can you import faster than pages
are being edited?)

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad  wrote:

> From: Chad 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons 
>  and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM,
> David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > 2009/5/14 Sage Ross :
> >
> >> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my
> strong agreement.
> >> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the
> many users who don't
> >> share the outlook of our
> more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
> >> community is long overdue.
> >
> >
> > Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions.
> >
> > What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting
> the contents of
> > the live working site.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> 
> Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split
> offs/new
> versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a
> small
> niche, but they'll never be a huge deal.
> 
> OTOH, the WMF saying "Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a
> version
> with all the nudity removed so you can show your
> kids/students/etc"
> would be massively popular.
> 

If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already 
been created?

I am serious here.  Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a 
third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror?  Our content is supposed to be 
easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so why 
isn't it happening?  What can we do to make the content more easily re-usable 
for different purposes? 

I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better 
suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work 
out exactly which tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror 
ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks 
are in place for general re-purposing of the content.

Birgitte SB


  


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Sage Ross]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
> sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
> pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
> indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a
> specially restrained manner. The picture  might be interpreted as
> implying that a woman as well as a man might enjoy the practice. When
> we show pictures of people engaging in recreation, we normally do show
> them enjoying it.  We do this even for dangerous sports. Our treatment
> of consensual sexual practices should be as for other non-harmful
> human activities: we present them as part of the normal world.  As far
> as children & sexuality go, I do not see the picture as harmful to any
> young person old enough to understand it. As far as sexual practices
> go, this one is from any point of view  quite innocuous.  If one wants
> to encourage young people to safe sex, this qualifies, though I'm
> aware it seems odd to some people.
>

I don't think it's so straightforward.  While I agree that a clinical
approach has drawbacks, the whole point of such an approach to, e.g.,
sexual content is to avoid implicit value judgments.  Compare the
pearl necklace photo with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Semfac01.png ; neither is clinical,
but either one, I would argue, has the potential to violate NPOV
unless properly contextualized and captioned.

In this case, having a single pearl necklace image with woman who
appears to enjoy it may carry the message not just that "a woman as
well as a man might enjoy the practice", but that a woman should or
usually does enjoy it.  And some cultural critics have argued that
some sex acts that have been emphasized in mainstream pornography
normalize humiliation of women through sex  (see [[Facial (sex act)]]
for some discussion of this).  My point is that a sex-positive message
may be even more problematic than a clinical one; if every sex act is
illustrated with the subjects appearing to enjoy it, that gives the
implicit message that, e.g., women are equally likely to enjoy any of
them--which is manifestly not the case.

But of course this is mostly a moot point.  Our sexology coverage
really weak, and nuances of images and POV are minor compared to
textual deficiencies in sex articles.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Chad :
> And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that
> and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia
> has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of
> a small subset of the overall content.

Nothing is wrong with it in principle, but I think we need to be clear
about why we would be doing this. Would we be doing it because *we*
think children should be protected from these images or because we
want to please parents who think that? While there is no difference to
what we would actually do, our reasons would be relevant from a PR
point of view.

>> The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide
>> like that is impossible.
>
> Is it? Blanket-labeling all images depicting nudity as "inappropriate" would
> be pretty straightforward and would alleviate the majority of concerns.

If you label nude images as inappropriate, are you also going to label
images of Muhammad as inappropriate? Or any of the numerous other
things that people find offensive? At the moment we can respond to
calls for the removal of such images with a simple "Wikipedia is not
censored". If you start censoring it, you then have the choose who it
is and isn't acceptable to offend, and I really don't think we should
be doing that.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Chad]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Sage Ross :
>
>> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
>> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
>> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
>> community is long overdue.
>
>
> Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions.
>
> What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting the contents of
> the live working site.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split offs/new
versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a small
niche, but they'll never be a huge deal.

OTOH, the WMF saying "Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a version
with all the nudity removed so you can show your kids/students/etc"
would be massively popular.

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 Sage Ross :

> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
> share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
> community is long overdue.


Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions.

What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting the contents of
the live working site.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Sage Ross]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
>> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
>> saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
>> have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!
> 
>
> I would suggest that a "child-safe" version of Wikipedia be cloaked
> with its own domain syntax in a way similar to secure.wikimedia.org.
> That would allow schools and parents to block the main site while
> providing access to an alternative that they might find more
> acceptable.
>
> Since domain level filtering is already commonly employed by many
> software packages I don't think that would be an unreasonable thing to
> ask.  Choosing what filtered views of Wikipedia to provide at a domain
> level would require some discussion of course as well as some form of
> social agreement about what content belongs behind the filter.  Not
> easy issues at all, but making a good faith effort to address them
> would be huge in my mind.
>
> -Robert Rohde

I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community is long overdue.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[The Cunctator]

Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content.

Articles about food items are not banned.
Articles about fiction are not banned.

Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.*


On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.
>
> Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
> content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
> deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary
> definitions, fiction, to say nothing of point of view editing.
>
> However, I think the most productive approach is to create specialized
> versions tailored for audiences which need information such as schools
> and Muslim cultures.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Robert Rohde]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
> saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
> have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!


I would suggest that a "child-safe" version of Wikipedia be cloaked
with its own domain syntax in a way similar to secure.wikimedia.org.
That would allow schools and parents to block the main site while
providing access to an alternative that they might find more
acceptable.

Since domain level filtering is already commonly employed by many
software packages I don't think that would be an unreasonable thing to
ask.  Choosing what filtered views of Wikipedia to provide at a domain
level would require some discussion of course as well as some form of
social agreement about what content belongs behind the filter.  Not
easy issues at all, but making a good faith effort to address them
would be huge in my mind.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Brion Vibber]

El 5/14/09 11:50 PM, David Gerard escribió:
> 2009/5/14 Oldak Quill:
>
>> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
>> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
>> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
>> that basis.
>
>
> I note that proposals to do blocking-oriented filtering of this sort
> on Wikipedia are perennial proposals that are perennially shot down.
>
> The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
> filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
> negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
> have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
> work themselves.

IMO there's unlikely to be much specific interest in a censored copy of 
any one particular site. Such filtering is generally done at the local 
installation level: workplaces, schools, and homes purchasing censorware 
proxies or enabling "parental controls" on their AOL etc.

Of course such censorware systems usually have secret blacklists, poor 
controls, tend to block sites whose politics they disagree with, etc -- 
but that's where the market demand for filtering is currently served.

-- brion

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[geni]

2009/5/14 David Gerard :
> 2009/5/14 Oldak Quill :
>
>> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
>> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
>> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
>> that basis.
>
>
> I note that proposals to do blocking-oriented filtering of this sort
> on Wikipedia are perennial proposals that are perennially shot down.
>
> The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
> filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
> negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
> have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
> work themselves.
>
> (In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
> consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
> Christopedia.)
>
>
> - d.

Part of the problem is there is no good free software to do it.
Adblock can sort of be used to do it but only to an extent.


-- 
geni

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Chad]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Chad :
>> Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
>> and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
>
> I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by
> such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would
> be to keep parents happy, not to protect children.
>

And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that
and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia
has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of
a small subset of the overall content.

>> A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)"
>> button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement.
>> The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right.
>
> The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide
> like that is impossible.
>

Is it? Blanket-labeling all images depicting nudity as "inappropriate" would
be pretty straightforward and would alleviate the majority of concerns.

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Chad :
> Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
> and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.

I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by
such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would
be to keep parents happy, not to protect children.

> A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)"
> button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement.
> The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right.

The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide
like that is impossible.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Chad]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/5/14 David Gerard :
>> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton :
>
>>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
>>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
>>> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
>>> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
>>> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.
>
>> Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing
>> as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
>> [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
>> decision. Which it in fact was.
>
>
> Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or "potentially
> morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly
> rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries
> to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do
> something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been
> roundly rejected.
>
> As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is
> for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live
> working wiki.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.

A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)"
button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement.
The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right.

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 David Gerard :
> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton :

>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
>> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
>> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
>> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.

> Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing
> as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
> [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
> decision. Which it in fact was.


Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or "potentially
morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly
rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries
to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do
something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been
roundly rejected.

As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is
for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live
working wiki.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton :

> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.


Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing
as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
[[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
decision. Which it in fact was.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 David Gerard :

> (In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
> consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
> Christopedia.)


Or - how could I forget, the example of an actually good selection of
Wikipedia that's proving very popular indeed with school teachers:

http://www.schools-wikipedia.org/


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 Oldak Quill :

> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
> that basis.


I note that proposals to do blocking-oriented filtering of this sort
on Wikipedia are perennial proposals that are perennially shot down.

The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
work themselves.

(In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
Christopedia.)


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.
>
> Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
> content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
> deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary
> definitions, fiction, to say nothing of point of view editing.

So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Fred Bauder]

> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.

Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary
definitions, fiction, to say nothing of point of view editing.

However, I think the most productive approach is to create specialized
versions tailored for audiences which need information such as schools
and Muslim cultures.

Fred Bauder


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Brion Vibber :
> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
> saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
> have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!

Indeed, that wouldn't work. How about a link parents can click to
download an indefinite cookie blocking the things they don't like?
Easy for kids with some technical know-how to bypass, but that's
always going to be the case. They are plenty of existing options for
parents to block things from their children, we can probably learn
something from them.

> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
> being created *by adults for adults*.

Well, there are things like www.schools-wikipedia.org which is a
start, although that's from the other direction than we're talking
about (selecting good stuff, rather than deselecting bad stuff).

> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
> objectionable.

That's why we long ago decided to be completely uncensored. It's not
just difficult, it's impossible.

> Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
> the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been
> marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the
> restricted search and get at everything if you want it.

Image searching is very different to reading an encyclopaedia, though.
You know when you're typing the search terms whether you are looking
for porn or not, and that's all the filters are really there for.
There aren't many instances where someone would be searching flickr or
google and wanting to find "adult" images when they aren't simply
looking for porn.

> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
> misused in vandalism)

How would you implement that? You can make it so "adult" images don't
load straight away and get replaced by a notice saying "Explicit image
- click here to view" or something (with an option somewhere to view
all images by default and, while you're there, you might as well make
an option to view no images by default with the same click-to-view
system). That would stop people accidentally seeing explicit images,
but it isn't going to be a major inconvenience to anyone else (the
images should be pre-loaded, so it's an instant *click* and the image
is there). Obviously, this is so easy to get around that it would
require paranoid parents to supervise their children's browsing, but
if they are that paranoid they should be doing that anyway.

However, such a system doesn't solve the problem of determining what
to censor, and I don't think that problem has a solution.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Max Harmony]

I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Goodman]

Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a
specially restrained manner. The picture  might be interpreted as
implying that a woman as well as a man might enjoy the practice. When
we show pictures of people engaging in recreation, we normally do show
them enjoying it.  We do this even for dangerous sports. Our treatment
of consensual sexual practices should be as for other non-harmful
human activities: we present them as part of the normal world.  As far
as children & sexuality go, I do not see the picture as harmful to any
young person old enough to understand it. As far as sexual practices
go, this one is from any point of view  quite innocuous.  If one wants
to encourage young people to safe sex, this qualifies, though I'm
aware it seems odd to some people.


 David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Brion Vibber]

El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribió:
> 2009/5/14 Robert Rohde:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton  
>> wrote:
>>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder:
 I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
 manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
 Karma Sutra.
>>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
>> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
>> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
>> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
>> remove that content.
>
> That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
> our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
> them choosing for themselves.

IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely 
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter 
saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should 
have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!


Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of 
"educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being 
created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily 
being created *by adults for adults*.

That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the 
educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational 
material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make 
something that won't freak out their parents.


The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how 
to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply 
_difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find 
objectionable.

Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle; 
the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been 
marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the 
restricted search and get at everything if you want it.

Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest 
hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents 
wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but 
would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're 
drawings.


Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this 
(basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for 
requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently 
misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct 
resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which 
multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely 
to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.

-- brion

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Common courtesy, maybe?





From: Fred Bauder 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:24:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons  
and freely licensed sexual imagery

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>> a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
spend hours looking for it.

I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

Fred Bauder



___
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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[David Moran]

*An article such as Pearl necklace
(sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
*
I assume her family cautioned her against using the internet entirely, then?

FMF





On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>>> a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>>
>
> I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
> spend hours looking for it.

There is no name for it because it is not false.

> I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
> does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

When I appear in public I wear clothing in keeping with the local
cultural norms. That is not neutral. I am not neutral. I have never
claimed to be and never will (except in very specific contexts). I,
however, am not Wikipedia.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Robert Rohde :
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>
> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
> remove that content.

That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
them choosing for themselves.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Robert Rohde]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
remove that content.

I'd especially like to be able to offer schools a feed that filters
out the adult content.  Obviously any system that depends on editors
to maintain the flags would be imperfect and subject to various
issues, but I do think making a good faith effort to provide
culturally sensitive variants of Wikipedia would be very useful from a
public relations standpoint and allow Wikipedia to reach audiences
that might otherwise be excluded.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>> a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
spend hours looking for it.

I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

Fred Bauder



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Fred Bauder]

> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
> enough
> to know that censorship is a dead issue.

It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting
someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
comprehensive information about sexuality, it doesn't belong in a general
purpose encyclopedia intended and promoted for the use of a young world
wide audience.

As to censorship, we censor and delete dictionary definitions and recipes
for God's sake; that is how Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not works.

Fred Bauder


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.

What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.

The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>>> very best,
>>> oscar
>>>
>>
>> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
>> right thing.
>>
>
>  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Without being superstitious, Wikipedia's karms is simply the consequences
of what we do, in this case, loss of both the usefulness of the
encyclopedia by part of broad spectrum of potential users and possible
loss of public support. Fucking the gods might be fun, but fucking the
consequences is not wise.

Fred



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   


Your thanks may be misplaced.

It is abundantly clear that your statement that there are
people who care about this is quite overstated.

So just get off your high horse yourself, or be taken down.

Please have a civil tongue.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[The Cunctator]

I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
to know that censorship is a dead issue.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> 2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
>
> > Fred Bauder wrote:
> > >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> > >> very best,
> > >> oscar
> > >>
> > >
> > > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > > right thing.
> > >
> >
> >  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> > around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> > you seem to appreciate.
> >
> > The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> > "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> > view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> > conditions for which there is no proven link.
> >
> > Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> > be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> > right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> > this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> > consequences, and just do what is right.
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 

> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> >> very best,
> >> oscar
> >>
> >
> > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > right thing.
> >
>
>  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>> very best,
>> oscar
>> 
>
> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> right thing.
>   

 From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
you seem to appreciate.

The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
"rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
conditions for which there is no proven link.

Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
consequences, and just do what is right.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Oldak Quill]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder :
>> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
>> sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
>> any drawing could be.
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder

Why shouldn't it be? Most humans engage in sexual practices of some
kind or another, so I would think our content on sexual practices
would be relevant to many of our readers. You suggest we should treat
content on sexual practices differently to how we treat content on
sporting practices because some of our readers may be minors. I am not
going to dispute the cultural relativity of what is suitable for
minors at the moment, but if we were to make the assumption that some
content is not suitable for minors (or, more to the point, that
because some content is considered unsuitable for minotrs, Wikipedia
is being discouraged at school), isn't there a better solution than
deleting content? For example, couldn't articles be tagged with a
"this article details sexual practices which some readers may feel is
not suitable for minors"? Articles with such a tag could be blocked in
user preferences, or for school IP ranges at the request of the
school. We could explain the tag at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia for
schools]] and explain how it is used.

I, personally, contend the premise that some content is inherently
unsuitable for minors. It really comes down to what some sections of
society consider unsuitable. For example, a Mormon parent's idea of
what is unsuitable, may differ to a Protestant parent's idea of what
is unsuitable - leaving alone the many possible non-Christian
variations. The point is that "suitability" is culturally relative.
Some parents may think it unsuitable at all to describe genital organs
or reproduction, many would think it entirely suitable. If we are to
honour removal/selective blocking of content on the grounds that it is
sexual, should we also honour a Mormon's parent's requests to block
the [[Joseph Smith]] article, which may give details that are
unpalatable to Mormons? Should we selectively block articles relating
to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children
are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope.

I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that basis.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakqu...@gmail.com)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Fred Bauder]

> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> very best,
> oscar

Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.

Fred


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[oscar]

in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
*edito ergo sum*

**
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
**
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l