Thanks Andreas Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
But more importantly, the porn on Flickr is a secondary issue - the intent of my email was to draw attention to the possibility of corporate control of the information, which you have already addressed. I saw something about CHECKUSER, and that special procedures must be followed to 'out' such people - or reveal possible sockpuppet or one-purpose accounts. I'll look into those and let you know. Best regards, Rui On 24 July 2013 03:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rui, > > The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are > cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly. > Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if > they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account > termination. > > See "Do moderate your content" and "Don't forget the children" on this > page: > > http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/ > > (To report an image, navigate to the image and click "Report abuse", near > the bottom of the page.) > > Andreas > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such > detailed > > scenarios. > > > > What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting. > > > > As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing > nudity > > and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it, > and > > ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that > is > > not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I > > was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised > > to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a > > problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is > > 'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons > > of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like > > any other porn site. > > > > And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rui > > > > On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Rui, > > > > > > There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of > > them: > > > > > > *Answer the First* > > > > > > This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for > > > agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made > complaints > > > like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will > change, > > > because editors like things just the way they are. > > > > > > The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of > > participation: > > > "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the > sun]. > > > You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say > > who > > > you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if > you're > > > smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit." > > > > > > Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html > > > > > > this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes > > to > > > dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get > > > worse. > > > > > > Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the > > Foundation > > > is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation. > > > > > > Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort > > of > > > players you call out in your original post will prevent it. > > > > > > The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the > people > > > who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against > you, > > > even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content. > > > > > > Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance > > sucks, > > > and how it affects content. > > > > > > *Answer the Second* > > > * > > > * > > > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In > the > > > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so > > > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually > > say > > > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180 > > > > > > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is > > > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account > > with a > > > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and > > removes > > > transparency. > > > > > > *Answer the Third* > > > * > > > * > > > What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's > own > > > website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of > who > > > the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia > > 101: > > > find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/ > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1 > > > > > > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr > > > > > > If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line. > > > > > > *Answer the Fourth* > > > > > > Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of > > > showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – > > want > > > to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get > to > > > see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following > links > > > are NSFW): > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=massage&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=40&redirs=0&profile=images&search=pliers > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male+human&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bell+tolling&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=prince+albert&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=30&redirs=0&profile=images&search=hood > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=black&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=asian&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=caucasian&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=furniture&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bench&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=driving&fulltext=Search > > > > > > Etc. > > > > > > Best, > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing > goes > > > on > > > > on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to > > address > > > > these issues. > > > > > > > > But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing > > information > > > > know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass > by > > to > > > > add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that > > get > > > > reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the > 'ownsership' > > > > syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they > > don't > > > > like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they > > 'own' > > > > certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are > > actually > > > > lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s). > > > > > > > > A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos > > > > sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I > > added > > > a > > > > few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I > > > admit > > > > the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the > history > > > of > > > > the page. > > > > > > > > That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything > > > > negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was > > > > 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of > hibernation > > 2 > > > > months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add > > > pro-Flickr > > > > edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page > of > > > > Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has > > > > practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr > > > (there > > > > is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there > > is > > > > indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work > in > > a > > > > concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes > > > > suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a > > > high-school > > > > student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are > > > making > > > > rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a > > > > section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other > > > > (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a > number > > > of > > > > Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a > > > > relaible source, apparently.. > > > > > > > > This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the > > Flickr > > > > article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it > and > > > > most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of > bad > > > > press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at > > > > whatever hour of day or night. > > > > > > > > The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project > > play > > > > into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist. > > > > Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor > will > > > > persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit > elsewhere. > > > > Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not > use > > > > them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up > for > > > > arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors > > > involved > > > > or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon > as > > > it > > > > develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and > > > > driving away good editors. > > > > > > > > I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have > > > come > > > > across this type of behaviour. > > > > And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind > > > spots > > > > of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same > > > > principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In > an > > > age > > > > when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the > service > > > of > > > > 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rui Correia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > _________________________ > > > > Rui Correia > > > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant > > > > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant > > > > > > > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 > > > > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 > > > > _______________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > _________________________ > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant > > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant > > > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 > > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 > > _______________ > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>