Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas Does it also apply to artwork of nude underages, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_playing_jonchets_by_Julien-Charles_Dubois or the trillion paintings with nude babies ? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On 31 May 2012 09:23, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.com wrote: The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas Does it also apply to artwork of nude underages, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_playing_jonchets_by_Julien-Charles_Dubois or the trillion paintings with nude babies ? No, because that's not a sexual image (which is what 2257 relates to). Tom ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list- Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form of it. For the record, Most forms of nudity, erotica, paintings, books, even video games, are capable of being classified as pornographic. On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? I agree with Laura. Even in pornography related articles, I've rarely seen discussion that was characteristic of a Boy's club while degrading or objectifying women in any shape or form. The impression here might be, that its all teenagers working on their fantasies in not as-visible pages, but that is hardly the case. They are few active editors that only edit a single topic or interact with one subset of the ecosystem; the idea that they constantly mask and carry around their hateful misogynistic tendencies, to only let loose on pornography articles, is just plain wrong. Pornography has always had 3 critics - Law, religion and feminism. In this age, coloring all 3 with the same generalized brush-stroke would be mistake; opinions mature and change over time, tolerance increases in all 3 forms. Law had it's problem with pornography, mostly descended from century old common law, until people started realizing they don't have to be bound by morality of old dead white men, from 300 years ago and they could decide for themselves. The same law in its vague interpretation outlawed homosexuality and the existence of homosexuals, in half of the world, and it still does. Religion had its problem with pornography but then we came out of the dark ages, art, even iconic religious art flirted with the boundaries of morality. The renaissance happened, with an explosion of culture and light and beauty, would Michelangelo's David have been pornographic in its age? or does it speak to more tolerance than what you might find even today. Would it have mattered if it was Aphrodite or The birth of Venus being ridiculed today. Adherence to certain practices, decreased and cultural tolerance increased - We just seem to be moving back in some cases. Then, the feminist movement, once all pornography was characterized as harmful and objectification of women, until there were dissenting voices, the sex-positive feminist movement for example. I once heard a plausible argument about the role pornography played in the sexual revolution for women that led to Women's lib in the US. I've also heard that the strongest critics within the feminist movement, would be equally if not more critical of censorship, which, incidentally is suggested on this list often as a solution. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
I've found this line of dialogue interesting but have hesitated to participate. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I arrived with a goal to bring some balance to many of the articles pertaining to domestic and international human trafficking and pornography. I soon realized that pornography and closely aligned topics were very heated. I encountered vulgar language, gender discrimination, objectification of women, and a less than hospitable environment that taught everybody to refrain from being dicks. I left for three years with no plans to return. My professional background includes speaking before local, state, and national legislative commissions and government houses on these issues, in addition to obscenity and the secondary harmful affects of pornography. I come from a long line of preachers, judges, and family members that are serving as city mayors, county commissioners, a US Senator, and state legislators. At the same time, I have many close friends that currently write, produce, and star in adult films. Then there are my stripper and hooker friends. I also work with global agencies and government officials to assist individuals escaping human trafficking situations from throughout Southeast Asia, Western Europe, and North America. This is my area of expertise. And the area of my life that I have long maintained separately from Wikipedia. While I say this hesitantly, I am one example of an editor that left due to the divide between the genders represented on Wikipedia. All that said, there is a lack of knowledge and ability on Wikipedia to differentiate between pornography and obscenity. Pornography is defined as erotic content or material that is intended or created to cause sexual arousal or excitement. That said, erotic content that depicts or displays sexual organs, sexual intercourse, or sexual acts *may not* always be defined as pornography. This is the case with content and materials presented for *educational purposes*. (In the US, outside of child pornography, pornography may only be regulated, based on the identified secondary harmful affects on the community in which it is created and/or distributed.) In the US, obscenity can be legislated according to local, regional, state laws. It is up to each community to determine what constitutes obscenity. And these laws can often change over the years, based on the norms of the individuals that vote to pass or fail the proposed regulations. At the same time, obscenity is defined differently throughout the world from one country and culture to the next. Due to the global nature of Wikipedia, I doubt that we will ever be able to establish guidelines regarding the presence of pornography. The rule of thumb is that which is determined to be educational. This differs from one person and one culture to the next. What one Wikipedian may find obscene, another may not. This can only be determined by the community. Is an image merely presented to bring shock and awe? Entice? Arouse? Or is it presented for educational purposes? Heck, even an image of arousal may be presented for educational purposes. The issue of pornography can really only be determined on a case by case basis. As I earlier stated, I left Wikipedia for three years due to the vulgarity and discrimination against women. I returned because I enjoy writing during my spare time. Wikipedia is reflective of our global culture, no matter where you choose to spend your time. When it comes right down to it, if I don't want to see it, as in my daily life, all I have to do is stay out of the Wikipedia red light district. Cindy On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list- Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form of it. For the record, Most forms of nudity, erotica, paintings, books, even video games, are capable of being classified as pornographic. On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
I think this comment completely misses the point. Yes, if you go to articles on deep throating or tit torture, you will surprise surprise, see images of those things. I don't see this as a big problem. The problem would be if the same images were showing up on articles unrelated to sexuality, but that does not appear to be the case at all from the examples that you and Larry Sanger have put forward. On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Here are results of a multimedia search for human female in Wikipedia (NSFW): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=100redirs=0profile=imagessearch=human+female Did you look at the examples Larry mentioned in his post? There are many more: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating, viewed more than 50,000 times this month (this actually had three rather than two images until a couple of days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep-throatingoldid=494580914) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture (16,000+ views this month) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake (120,000+ views this month) Basically, if you go through the articles listed in en:WP templates like the sexual slang template, the Outline of BDSM template etc. you will come across many such articles, all with high viewing figures. An example from de:WP: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaginalverkehroldid=97830340 Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46879013@N03/4414846436/ http://www.flickr.com/people/46879013@N03 The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him, focused primarily on the very low probability that someone might accidentally stumble onto sexual images... to the near exclusion of the far more important problem, to me, of hosting potentially thousands of images where the subject is unknown, unaware of the publication of the image and did not (and would not have) given permission for such publication. For most images on Commons of a sexual nature there is no model release and no age verification, but despite the Board resolution and the lip-service paid to personality rights on Commons, there have been only minimal efforts to rectify this problem. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.comwrote: The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas Does it also apply to artwork of nude underages, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_playing_jonchets_by_Julien-Charles_Dubois or the trillion paintings with nude babies ? No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 If creation of the image did not involve real people engaged in such conduct, no record-keeping requirements apply. Note that while the Wikimedia Foundation, due to Section 230(c) safe harbor provisions, does not have a record-keeping duty here, my layman's reading of http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 is that every *individual contributor* who – uploads an image depicting real people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or – inserts such an image in Wikipedia, or – manages such content on Wikimedia sites, thereby becomes a secondary producer required to keep and maintain records documenting the performers' age, name, and consent, with failure to do so punishable by up to five years in prison. Note that this includes anyone, say, inserting an image or video of masturbation in a Wikipedia article or categorising it in Commons without having a written record of the name, age and consent of the person shown on file. I've asked Philippe Beaudette to confirm that this reading is correct. He has said that while they cannot provide legal advice to individual editors, they will put someone to work on that, and that it will be a month or so before they can come back to us. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him, focused primarily on the very low probability that someone might accidentally stumble onto sexual images... to the near exclusion of the far more important problem, to me, of hosting potentially thousands of images where the subject is unknown, unaware of the publication of the image and did not (and would not have) given permission for such publication. For most images on Commons of a sexual nature there is no model release and no age verification, but despite the Board resolution and the lip-service paid to personality rights on Commons, there have been only minimal efforts to rectify this problem. Nathan, I agree with you that the consent issue is a huge problem. Wikimedia is allowing people to upload revenge porn (= sexual images of ex-partners) anonymously, without models' knowledge or consent, and editors then use this kind of material to illustrate articles. Editors are pinching hundreds of private sexual images off Flickr and upload them to Wikimedia sites without asking Flickr account owners for consent, in violation of the board resolution. The March/April thread on personality rights I started on the Commons list was exactly about that: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-March/006409.html Even after that post it took over a month to get these images deleted, after a total of six or seven deletion nominations: even though Commons *knew all along* that the models did not want these images on Wikimedia. Commons has images here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lesbic_use_of_nipple_clamps_and_strap-on_dildo.jpg from an uploader who has written on Commons, First of all, I am the photographer of this photo [dianaoftripoli]. I'm not even sure WHY this photo is on Wikimedia. the photo was posted on my Flickr account. This is in violation of how I want the photo to be used, so I do want it to be taken DOWN. For the record, no one involved in that project was underage. This conversation is completely idiotic. It was a college final project and of course it was taken with a high quality camera and of course it doesn't match my normal life because it is ART. You're all crazy. REMOVE this photo from this site and all others that I have taken. If you need to contact me, contact me directly via Flickr. Do NOT publish any more of my photos on another site WITHOUT my consent. PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, your posting of my photography AND COMMENTARY are in VIOLATION of my PRIVATE life and those who are in the photographs. You all should be ASHAMED. Bunch of speculative meddlers. Find something better to do and respect other people's privacy. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATasting_a_condom.jpgdiff=67108318oldid=66957446 and Commons is STILL refusing to delete her images. I did my best to get them deleted, bringing them to the attention of the Wikimedia UK chair, who nominated them for deletion. To no avail (well, one of the images was deleted; it was a simulated image of a naked woman having her throat cut in a bathtub). Any help on consent issues is very much appreciated, Nathan. For a list of current nudity and sexuality-related Commons deletion requests, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests I am sorry – this thread may now actually be in danger of derailing the discussion. If people want to debate this further, but consensus is that the discussion should take place elsewhere, we could perhaps create a page on Meta. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 If creation of the image did not involve real people engaged in such conduct, no record-keeping requirements apply. Note that while the Wikimedia Foundation, due to Section 230(c) safe harbor provisions, does not have a record-keeping duty here, my layman's reading of http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 is that every *individual contributor* who – uploads an image depicting real people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or – inserts such an image in Wikipedia, or – manages such content on Wikimedia sites, thereby becomes a secondary producer required to keep and maintain records documenting the performers' age, name, and consent, with failure to do so punishable by up to five years in prison. Note that this includes anyone, say, inserting an image or video of masturbation in a Wikipedia article or categorising it in Commons without having a written record of the name, age and consent of the person shown on file. I've asked Philippe Beaudette to confirm that this reading is correct. He has said that while they cannot provide legal advice to individual editors, they will put someone to work on that, and that it will be a month or so before they can come back to us. Let me try and give the whole context here. Actually, the Wikipedia article[1] on this subject explains the situation much better. I'm sure, finer legal minds reading this can correct where I go wrong. I am a layman too, and this is my inference from reading about the subject. The law you are speaking of is part of Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 or and the guideline enforcing them is 2257 Regulations. It actually placed the burden of record keeping, on the primary producers, as in, who is involved in hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted,. In its original form, it only placed the burden on producers of pornographic material to comply with record-keeping. Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes, reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. The real question now becomes about its enforcement. Much of the sexual material on the internet, even depiction of works of art several hundred years old, any form of nudity even for educational, anatomical purposes might fall under this law (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person). The burden on service providers, and hosting websites would be massive to speak of - consider the implication on Facebook for example, or Flickr, or even Google, being responsible for linking every single image in results, they don't possess the proper records of the depicted subjects, which might very well number into tens of millions. Maybe that's why, it has been implemented only in one specific case primarily based on the new 2257 law and related legislation. The case was against Joe Francis, the originator of Girls gone Wild series. Also, of relevance might be that the series in question only depicted nudity, and not any sexual act. Even these charges were for the most part dropped later on. Regards Theo [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_USC_2257 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On 31 May 2012 14:10, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 If creation of the image did not involve real people engaged in such conduct, no record-keeping requirements apply. Note that while the Wikimedia Foundation, due to Section 230(c) safe harbor provisions, does not have a record-keeping duty here, my layman's reading of http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 is that every *individual contributor* who – uploads an image depicting real people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or – inserts such an image in Wikipedia, or – manages such content on Wikimedia sites, thereby becomes a secondary producer required to keep and maintain records documenting the performers' age, name, and consent, with failure to do so punishable by up to five years in prison. Note that this includes anyone, say, inserting an image or video of masturbation in a Wikipedia article or categorising it in Commons without having a written record of the name, age and consent of the person shown on file. I've asked Philippe Beaudette to confirm that this reading is correct. He has said that while they cannot provide legal advice to individual editors, they will put someone to work on that, and that it will be a month or so before they can come back to us. Let me try and give the whole context here. Actually, the Wikipedia article[1] on this subject explains the situation much better. I'm sure, finer legal minds reading this can correct where I go wrong. I am a layman too, and this is my inference from reading about the subject. The law you are speaking of is part of Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 or and the guideline enforcing them is 2257 Regulations. It actually placed the burden of record keeping, on the primary producers, as in, who is involved in hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted,. In its original form, it only placed the burden on producers of pornographic material to comply with record-keeping. Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes, reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. That's pretty important then, right? Because IIRC circuit court decisions inform judgement in later such cases - and the only way the legal interpretation can be rejudged is in a full appeals court? Tom ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: That's pretty important then, right? Because IIRC circuit court decisions inform judgement in later such cases - and the only way the legal interpretation can be rejudged is in a full appeals court? Tom That can be true, but there are 13 circuits and a decision in one has force only within its own jurisdiction. In any case, it's clear that Wikimedia is not held to these rules, but that's rather beside the point. We should *want* this information, whether we are required to have it or not. Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes, reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. The real question now becomes about its enforcement. Much of the sexual material on the internet, even depiction of works of art several hundred years old, any form of nudity even for educational, anatomical purposes might fall under this law (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person). Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward. The burden on service providers, and hosting websites would be massive to speak of - consider the implication on Facebook for example, or Flickr, or even Google, being responsible for linking every single image in results, they don't possess the proper records of the depicted subjects, which might very well number into tens of millions. Again, that is completely wrong. Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation are already protected by 230(c) safe harbor provisions. Responsibility lies with the individual uploader or editor, who enjoys no such protection but is fully liable for their own actions. Maybe that's why, it has been implemented only in one specific case primarily based on the new 2257 law and related legislation. The case was against Joe Francis, the originator of Girls gone Wild series. Also, of relevance might be that the series in question only depicted nudity, and not any sexual act. Even these charges were for the most part dropped later on. The thing is: Wikimedia keeps edit histories and contributions lists for decades. We have no idea what implementation of US law will look like in five or ten years' time, given political vagaries. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward. I reread the information I based my conclusion on. I must be missing some part that you are referring to. Even the definition of secondary producers and its distinction from primary producers is linked and explained at length in articles related to legislation 2257. You gave the definition of sexually explicit content from Cornell law that I based my understanding on, (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. - is a giant definition to cover a lot of content, regardless of its purpose. The single prosecution based on that law has been against the Girls Gone Wild producer, they weren't exactly charged for any other form of sexually explicit content beyond depiction of genitals or pubic area and lack of proper record-keeping. Again, that is completely wrong. Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation are already protected by 230(c) safe harbor provisions. Responsibility lies with the individual uploader or editor, who enjoys no such protection but is fully liable for their own actions. Here in lies the burden on the service providers. The complete record of the uploader/editor/individual would lie with the service provider. Edit histories and contribution list provide next to no information on the real world identities of editors, not even where they are located. The only possible link, even the country of residence would be information only available to the service provider in the form of their IP address. Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no real world link without the IP records. That is where the burden comes on the service provider. In order to prosecute and get that information legally, the burden passes to the provider. This actually happens all the time, requests are made by prosecutors, law-enforcers, to legally get the information to prosecute, just not in cases of record-keeping violations. There have been new developments related to this, IP addresses not being directly culpable of actions as such, or not being culpable of the individual paying for the said IP connection but that's another discussion. The thing is: Wikimedia keeps edit histories and contributions lists for decades. We have no idea what implementation of US law will look like in five or ten years' time, given political vagaries. Yes, but those edit histories and contribution lists are useless in their public form. More so, in Wikimedia's case than say Facebook. The only relevant information is the IP address, which again open up a whole new door of privacy and how far Wikimedia would go to defend or infringe on it. I really don't know how long CU information is retained vs. edit histories, but if they are indeed kept for decades, it might turn into a liability. The speed at which IP addresses can change, even entire blocks move, even that history might become unusable in 1-2 years. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Gossamer threads archive
To the list administrators: Would it be possible to have this list archived on gossamer-threads, like the Foundation list? http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/ It's a much more convenient format to refer back to than the monthly archive page. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no real world link without the IP records. Firstly, that's not the sort of reasoning a charitable foundation should rely on. It makes for bad PR. Secondly, it is often relatively trivial to identify people. You'll remember that the person who posted the Seigenthaler hoax was identified from his IP, and lost his job (I think he got it back afterwards, when Seigenthaler took pity on him and spoke to his employer). Furthermore, many established Commonists and Wikipedians either disclose their real names on mailing lists and/or their user pages, have pictures of themselves on Commons from Wikimania or other Wikimedia events, or are otherwise trivially identifiable. Take the recent Beta M case, for example. Yes, an anonymous uploader who made only one edit from an Internet café may escape scrutiny. Although the other day I came across one uploader who had inadvertently uploaded geolocation data from his mobile phone along with his image, identifying the precise street address of the bedroom in Germany where the image was taken ... many mobile phones these days include geolocation in their metadata. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no real world link without the IP records. Firstly, that's not the sort of reasoning a charitable foundation should rely on. It makes for bad PR. A charitable foundation? Bad PR? Every OSP uses this and it is an actual and often-used legal defense. Youtube uploaders don't use their real names, their social security numbers or even their resident country. Same with Facebook, in case of legal proceeding, just a FB page is not enough to link identity for an entire legal case. There are a few posters on this list, not using their real name, is it PR to say you can not legally link their real identities to their email addresses without going through their email provider? Secondly, it is often relatively trivial to identify people. You'll remember that the person who posted the Seigenthaler hoax was identified from his IP, and lost his job (I think he got it back afterwards, when Seigenthaler took pity on him and spoke to his employer). Furthermore, many established Commonists and Wikipedians either disclose their real names on mailing lists and/or their user pages, have pictures of themselves on Commons from Wikimania or other Wikimedia events, or are otherwise trivially identifiable. Take the recent Beta M case, for example. You must have some super-powers to identify people on commons without their IP info then, most of us need CU and even that is not conclusive or linked to any real identity. I don't know a single thing about any editor that they doesn't choose to mention on their user page. To have that weak of a chain of identification, enough to prosecute someone and stand up to legal scrutiny, is something totally different. If you want, I can list 100 users on commons and en.wp, please identify them for me if it is that trivial. I have only talked to them for a couple of years, but I still can't tell anything about them, no names, gender, location. I'm usually surprised to learn those things, when they are actually revealed, I never thought someone's real identity and personal information being trivial to figure out. Even in the case you mention, the only identifiable information was his IP, the OSP is usually the only one with access to that information. Yes, an anonymous uploader who made only one edit from an Internet café may escape scrutiny. Although the other day I came across one uploader who had inadvertently uploaded geolocation data from his mobile phone along with his image, identifying the precise street address of the bedroom in Germany where the image was taken ... many mobile phones these days include geolocation in their metadata. Actually, most smartphone have the option to add geolocation data to the metadata. They can turn it off or on in their settings. Most people already do upload geolocation data along with their smartphone images without knowing about it. It is actually very, very common. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
This may be an interesting tangent, but it doesn't really bear on the responsibility of Wikimedia or its projects. While others may have both legal and moral obligations, Wikimedia certainly has moral obligations with or without potential legal liability. The legal arguments are just a smokescreen. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
Okay, I'm going to try to redirect this thread a bit from the long, drawn out discussion about legal requirements for model releases of explicit images (and the related record keeping), because I think that is only one small aspect of issues. I agree with those who say there is a low risk of people accidentally finding images of an explicit nature in Wikipedia articles that are not directly related to those subjects. I do agree that at least some Wikipedia projects seem to have a disproportionately large collection of such articles, and that some of them are poorly named or identified, so that someone looking up a term that is used both in relation to a non-sexual topic and a sexual topic may get a bit of a surprise, and that needs to be addressed. On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their image was going to be made available on Commons. I believe that whoever uploads those images to Commons has a personal responsibility to verify that all of the subjects in those images was aware of, and agrees to, the licensing terms. I also believe that it should become part of the process that prior to uploading such images, the person uploading to Commons confirms with the Flickr uploader that the terms of the license are correct, and that there are suitable model releases where applicable. Let's not worry so much about what courts have decided, and pay more attention to developing best practices within our own projects. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their image was going to be made available on Commons. I believe that whoever uploads those images to Commons has a personal responsibility to verify that all of the subjects in those images was aware of, and agrees to, the licensing terms. I also believe that it should become part of the process that prior to uploading such images, the person uploading to Commons confirms with the Flickr uploader that the terms of the license are correct, and that there are suitable model releases where applicable. Let's not worry so much about what courts have decided, and pay more attention to developing best practices within our own projects. Risker/Anne Agreed. Most of these are from Flickr, for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Handcuffed Going by past experience, the Flickr account holders are quite likely unaware of these uploads. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should there be a Wikipedia boycott over the lack of an image filter?
* Laura Hale wrote: There was a real feeling amongst some people that this was a red-herring type issue that was taking away valuable time and resources from doing activities towards increasing female participation on Wikimedia related projects, and that to a certain degree, the obsession with this topic was actively derailing the ability to work on these goals. Perhaps we could conduct an experiment to see whether there is any truth to that? Maybe someone could make this point on the gendergap mailing list, and then we'd look whether people will discuss increasing female participation on Wikipedia, or would instead discuss issues surrounding depictions of human nudity, like record keeping requirements in national jurisdictions... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
From: Risker On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their image was going to be made available on Commons. I believe that whoever uploads those images to Commons has a personal responsibility to verify that all of the subjects in those images was aware of, and agrees to, the licensing terms. I also believe that it should become part of the process that prior to uploading such images, the person uploading to Commons confirms with the Flickr uploader that the terms of the license are correct, and that there are suitable model releases where applicable. This has always been one of my concerns about the superordination of free licensing in our image policy, both on Commons and enwiki. Any other issues with the image are downplayed in favor of archiving all the free images possible. I am not sure, for instance, that many of the Flickr users whose pictures have been used are quite aware of what the CC license means. Some of them seemed to think at one point that it was the only way to make their pictures publicly viewable, or did so because of peer pressure to do this good and cool thing without really understanding the legal implications. I have often wondered what we do if confronted with a situation where there was a notable person with plenty of good-quality copyrighted images, but the only free one would be one that was rather unintentionally revealing (upskirt, say) while still showing their face. Could some editors insist on using one of the copyrighted images in that case even though the NFCC would not allow it because an equivalent free image was available? Daniel Case ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
What I'd like to see, and what I don't think has been done before, is a survey of editors as they are editing. By that I mean, when someone saves an edit, a box asks them What was the purpose of your edit? What made you decide to make this edit? If it was to correct an error, how were you alerted to the error? Do you have specific expertise in the topic of this article? Are you male, female or decline to respond? etc. etc. It could be done alone, or in conjunction with a broader opt-in survey, but I think it would capture some really interesting and useful results. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Gossamer threads archive
Hi Andreas, I think the current archival system, while not as manageable as Gossmer-Threads, is fine. We've had enough issues with privacy concerns on this public list, and I'd rather keep this list public yet still maintain what little bit of safety and privacy we can. If the members of this list think that an additional archival system is welcome, so be it, but, I think at this time the current system is fine. -Sarah On 5/31/12 6:58 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: To the list administrators: Would it be possible to have this list archived on gossamer-threads, like the Foundation list? http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/ It's a much more convenient format to refer back to than the monthly archive page. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote: I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it. Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't. I think this is a good point. One of the most surprising results from our editor surveys was large disparity between the importance that men assign to editing Wikipedia and the importance that women assign to it. (A significantly higher percentage of men said they edit Wikipedia because it is important.) How is it possible that men and women view the importance of the exact same activity in dramatically different ways? I have a lot of theories, but I'd love to see more research into this. Ryan Kaldari ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
When I did my oh so not scientific survey about women who edit Wikipedia last year (and it was not an official WMF survey, this was just done by me, a concerned editor, and the process has changed since then, so don't plan on doing your own without going through WMF research processes, now) this is what I discovered from women who had edited Wikipedia within the past year (up to that point in 2011): *83% of respondents started participating because they like the idea of volunteering to share their knowledge and/or wanted to share their knowledge with a larger audience. * You can learn more about that here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Why_did_these_respondents_start_participating_in_Wikimedia_projects.3F *Why do most people continue to edit? * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Why_do_these_respondents_continue_their_participation_in_Wikimedia_projects.3F * Every respondent said they liked volunteering and that they found it empowering. * It's common knowledge amongst those involved in non-profit work that women devote more time to non-profit volunteering then men. How can we tap into that and let women know that they are contributing to a non-profit that has an international impact? I asked why people /stop/ contributing (and this survey did include some women who stopped editing perhaps in that one year period): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Sometimes_editors_activity_levels_fluctuate._What_are_some_of_the_reasons_why_respondents_don.27t_contribute_as_much_as_they_usually_do_or_used_to.3F Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. I think it's sexualized language and behavior that we need to be more concerned about - sexist comments and bad manners. (and of course, sexism can be experienced by people of any gender and has on Wikipedia.) But, that relies on culture change and allies within the community to shoot down behavior like that (civility!). *58% of participants said they had never been assaulted, attacked or been treated poorly by their Wikipedia colleagues. 33 percent said yes. *http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Do_survey_participants_feel_they_have_been_assaulted.2C_attacked.2C_or_treated_poorly_by_colleagues_on_projects.3F I did this survey because I wanted to know why women were editing. Not why women weren't. I took this as a sign that I needed to develop some sort of call for action, which encourages women to participate (something I am working on that is not yet public for my fellowship) that doesn't involve extensive time consumption at times, that the environment is probably worse for women who do find that sexualized content because they are looking at that content (duh, I'm going to find porny stuff when I search for doggy style or whatever or when i search for cucumber on commons because I know where to look. Most people who use Commons know that it's mainly used by Wikipedians, no one else - pregnancy is one prime recent example, but, that's one article out of 3 million+ on English wikipedia), and so I'd channel my energy into actions. I still wholeheartedly believe that call for actions, making tasks simpler and easier to participate in, inviting women to participate online and offline, social activities and friendly easy to understand content is going to help. (and help people of all genders participate - so far the Teahouse is helping retain editors, and that includes a large percentage of women who have came through the Teahouse, but how do we make it more known to more women?) My opinion has come down to: stop searching, and start taking actions. Not all actions might succeed, but, it's up to us to find that out. Stop bitching and start a revolution, as the old adage says :) -Sarah On 5/31/12 10:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote: I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it. Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't. I think this is a good point. One of the most surprising results from our editor surveys was large disparity between the importance that men assign to editing Wikipedia and the importance that women assign to it. (A significantly higher percentage of men said they edit Wikipedia because it is important.) How is it possible that men and women view the
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. I think it's sexualized language and behavior that we need to be more concerned about - sexist comments and bad manners. (and of course, sexism can be experienced by people of any gender and has on Wikipedia.) But, that relies on culture change and allies within the community to shoot down behavior like that (civility!). Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On May 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. {{citation needed}} Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}! Too commonly on Wikimedia projects, the following two positions are conflated: (1) Concern about the ratio of content (e.g. the number of one kind of photo vs. another kind of photo) or the social dynamics around editing (2) Willingness to engage in censorship The two are simply not the same. To have a concern (like 1) is not to endorse one specific course of action (like 2). Offhand, I can't think of any actively engaged Wikipedian who has ever seriously endorsed censorship in our projects. In general, within our projects and mailing lists, I'd like to see less inflammatory rhetoric based on this kind of conflation. I don't think it advances the discussion to label people as supporting censorship, when they have done no such thing. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Public voice of gendergap
Dear colleagues, There is one reason, and one reason alone, that I have not gotten into the fray about appropriateness of images and some text in Wikipedia. The reason is the discussion ends up on the internet and any search for my name will turn up all the details of everyone's comments. This generates a guilt-by-association situation that can affect real life circumstances that I've already experienced. In discussion with some parents, content added by some, discredits the entire Wikipedia reason-to-exist, and has become 'not-recommended.' As a mother and educator, who has encouraged universities, schools, PTAs, and school districts to embrace Wikipedia, and give students the opportunity to get a feel for ownership and responsible editing, and as a scholar committed to seeking solutions to gender gap issues, I hold the view that some materials are not appropriate. What is not appropriate in schools and libraries has to be something to consider as a measure of acceptability. As a social scientist, it is clear to me cultures vary. There might be considered an Iron Curtain Wikipedia with content that those seeking 'certain topics' could elect to navigate. I'd rather this comment not be attached to any that may follow it, otherwise, I am sidelined from getting into the communication and search for consensus. Thank you, and onward gallant Wikipedians - wherever and whoever you are, KS Rolph ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. {{citation needed}} Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}! (I won't bother to ask for an apology.) I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
* John Vandenberg wrote: What research is needed? We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia. What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of * why women don't contribute? * what would help them contribute? * other? http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-December/002134.html -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan /b/. http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW) 4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as the saying, There are no girls on the Internet. As you'll no doubt see if you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, Tits or GTFO. Rather male-centric, right? The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...) The following screenshots are SFW: http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-81.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-9.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-10.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-11.png The following is the dialogue they show: ---o0o--- /b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards? in the kitchen. stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon. i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz? making me a god damn sammwich make my sandwich silently im a girl,im in florida Tits or GTFO. Pic related. Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist. girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen? female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet ---o0o--- Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other. The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here: http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-enlighten-me-i-feel-dirty/ Andreas On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. {{citation needed}} Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}! (I won't bother to ask for an apology.) I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other. The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here: http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-enlighten-me-i-feel-dirty/ Did we just read the same blog post. Because I'm fairly sure that is not what she said. (and indeed I found the post insightful, refreshing and important) Tom ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
I agree! Pete, Kaldari and others have fought the good fight about that. I think some Things were developed on Commons and we tried to get more folks involved to no avail. I can't provide links this second. I tried my best with model releases (I worked in fashion and photography before I was a Wikipedian and curator!) but little has seemed to come from it and as alway - I encourage people to get involved in curating commons of non-educational content. More voices means more content control. I had to shift my focus to focus on bringing more women to Wikipedia, which I hope leads to more curating of content. Don't get me wrong - I think his very Important!! Sarah Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On May 31, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: ... I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. ... Hi Sarah, I see your point, but I think the model releases are a major issue for us. As I look at it, women *are involved extensively in Wikimedia, but a big percentage of that involvement comes in the form of being portrayed naked on Commons. This is very troubling to me. If in addition it's being done without their consent, then it's something I really wish we could act on, regardless of the legal requirements. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
Andreas, ffs can we have one thread where we don't talk about porn. Or if you do think porn is a part of the gendergap, pose research questions which will help test your hypothesis, because that is what this thread is about. I want research questions I can put to real academics. Not bullshit hand-wavey assertions even if they are backed up by a 'citation'. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan /b/. http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW) 4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as the saying, There are no girls on the Internet. As you'll no doubt see if you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, Tits or GTFO. Rather male-centric, right? The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...) The following screenshots are SFW: http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-81.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-9.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-10.png http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-11.png The following is the dialogue they show: ---o0o--- /b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards? in the kitchen. stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon. i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz? making me a god damn sammwich make my sandwich silently im a girl,im in florida Tits or GTFO. Pic related. Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist. girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen? female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet ---o0o--- Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other. The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here: http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-enlighten-me-i-feel-dirty/ Andreas On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. {{citation needed}} Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}! (I won't bother to ask for an apology.) I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? Hi Laura, I totally agree with you - I have never come across anything remotely offensive in the course of editing or browsing. What I was trying to say is that rather than being a reason more females don't edit Wikipedia (and perhaps here my use of the word prevalence was wrong) the presence of certain types of pornography on Wikipedia contributes to the culture which results in the instances of misogny and discrimination you note. So I do see the editorial decisions made around the type of content Larry Sanger referenced as being part of a wider conversation about female participation. Cheers, Kim ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect. This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography. Risker/Anne Anne, It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out. The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on. Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites. I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] So what have you been working on lately article wise as a woman or about women?
I thought it'd be refreshing to have a positive thread and something less-...porny, if you will :) *What have /you/ been working on? In any language, on any sister project of Wikimedia? Online and offline? What are you doing to be proactive or contributing as a volunteer, fellow, staff member, etc? Don't be shy, share your work! Be bold and be proud*! I've been working on the Teahouse, as part of my Fellowship, and of course, you're welcome to stop by and say hi if you wish and make a guest profile (or sign up to be a host!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Article wise I've been writing a lot about the Smithsonian, since I'm finishing up my final month as Wikipedian-in-Residence there. Just finished a rewrite of the National Museum of African Art which was the first Smithsonian museum to hire a woman director: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_African_Art When I have leisure-Wikipedia time (which seems like never these days) I've been working on trudging through the 1,000+ backlog of WikiProject Women's History unrated articles (i.e. importance/class). We also have a second women's edit-a-thon coming up in San Francisco, if you're in the area, sign up! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco_WikiWomen%27s_Edit-a-Thon_2 What about you? Online and offline activities, I'd love to hear about how you've being proactive and what you're working on! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect. This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography. Risker/Anne Anne, It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out. The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on. Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites. I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree. I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to pro-porn culture when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to pro-porn culture when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit. Risker/Anne I agree with the desire to talk about something else for awhile, but for what it's worth... It's been my observation that it's common, even extremely common, for Wikimedia mailing lists (and mailing lists in general) to fixate on a single or small number of topics for awhile before moving on to something else. Let's not treat this as though weeks or months of discussion had been sidetracked to pornography; it's been a few threads for a few days, and these threads have drawn far more posts than the typical topics on this list. It's also in the nature of e-mail that anyone disinterested in the controversial nexus of Wikimedia and sexuality could ignore these posts and reply to their hearts content on other topics. Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
* I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to pro-porn culture when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. * +1 And for what its worth, WWC girls have no problem discussing sex, porn or male genitalia (we did spend more than 20 min laughing about the lies that europeans tell in studies like the one who originate this: http://alphadesigner.com/blog/europe-according-penis-size/ (which clearly states that French and Hungarians like to tell big fat lies ;) ) and the people who can peform autocoitus. So isn't that big of a issue. (and the map also shows that :-D ) _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 31 May 2012 22:35, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect. This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography. Risker/Anne Anne, It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out. The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on. Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites. I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree. I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to pro-porn culture when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? Hi Laura, I totally agree with you - I have never come across anything remotely offensive in the course of editing or browsing. What I was trying to say is that rather than being a reason more females don't edit Wikipedia (and perhaps here my use of the word prevalence was wrong) the presence of certain types of pornography on Wikipedia contributes to the culture which results in the instances of misogny and discrimination you note. So I do see the editorial decisions made around the type of content Larry Sanger referenced as being part of a wider conversation about female participation. Cheers, Kim That, in a nutshell, was the point I was making. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap