From Larry Sanger's blog:
---o0o---
I want to start a conversation. [...Larry says, in his blog]
I. Problem? What problem?
So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?
Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.”
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.
(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)
Here is the short version:
Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.
But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following.
http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-probl...
Feel free to repost!
---o0o---
There is further discussion of this, with Larry in attendance, on Wikipediocracy.com:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=429
Note that the related thread is in the "Sexualisation" subforum, which is only accessible to registered Wikipediocracy members. Registration is free though, and anyone wishing to have a look is welcome to join up and participate!
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Best, Andreas
What is the relationship with gender-gap ? Are female children more unlikely to contribute to Wikimedia projects if they saw some porn on Wikipedia or Commons ?
Caroline
2012/5/30 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
From Larry Sanger's blog:
---o0o---
I want to start a conversation. [...Larry says, in his blog]
I. Problem? What problem?
So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?
Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.”
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.
(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)
Here is the short version:
Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.
But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following.
http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-probl...
Feel free to repost!
---o0o---
There is further discussion of this, with Larry in attendance, on Wikipediocracy.com:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=429
Note that the related thread is in the "Sexualisation" subforum, which is only accessible to registered Wikipediocracy members. Registration is free though, and anyone wishing to have a look is welcome to join up and participate!
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.comwrote:
What is the relationship with gender-gap ? Are female children more unlikely to contribute to Wikimedia projects if they saw some porn on Wikipedia or Commons ?
Caroline
This was something we discussed at WikiWomenCamp during several sessions. (On our list of why women do NOT contribute, I do not think it even made the board.) I think the consensus most of the participants had was this was largely a problem confined to English Wikipedia amongst a certain subset of English speakers, most of whom are from the United States. The belief was most women were not intentionally seeking this information out and you could not find it as easily as some conversations suggested: You had to be actively looking for it and actively looking to be offended by it. These types of people were not likely to be contributing to Wikipedia anyway. 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.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.comwrote:
What is the relationship with gender-gap ? Are female children more unlikely to contribute to Wikimedia projects if they saw some porn on Wikipedia or Commons ?
Caroline
This was something we discussed at WikiWomenCamp during several sessions. (On our list of why women do NOT contribute, I do not think it even made the board.) I think the consensus most of the participants had was this was largely a problem confined to English Wikipedia amongst a certain subset of English speakers, most of whom are from the United States.
I remember Robert Harris once saying to me, in an e-mail, something to the effect that one of the main reasons Wikimedia does so poorly at curating sexual content responsibly is its gender imbalance. He expressed the view that the only way this was ever going to change was by Wikimedia having a healthier gender ratio. I thought he was absolutely right.
The belief was most women were not intentionally seeking this information out and you could not find it as easily as some conversations suggested: You had to be actively looking for it and actively looking to be offended by it. These types of people were not likely to be contributing to Wikipedia anyway. 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.
For an example of a woman exasperated by Wikipedia's handling of sexual content, see this post http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html by blogger Penny Sociologist, which my wife somehow came across.
This concerned a crudely animated cartoon of a woman being struck in the back of the neck during sex, which the blogger had encountered in a Wikipedia article. Here is a quote from her post, commenting on Wikipedia's editorial process:
---o0o---
Let's revisit the serious, consensus-building Discussion page for donkey punching:
Misogynist: "Just want to say that the picture with this article is HILARIOUS!!!
Another Misogynist: "Same here. It made me laugh for a good 10 minutes."
Voice of Reason: "As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I would suggest the current picture is unnecessary and inappropriate and should therefore be removed."
Another Misogynist: "And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up the butt."
Somewhere later down the page, while misogynists coldly discuss the merits of an earlier illustration that wasn't animated, one says: "Preferably the image shouldn't be a cartoon, but actually showing a real couple."
So there you have Wikipedia's "serious discussion" and "consensus" building.
---o0o---
It may well be true that women do not seek these types of pages out generally. But what you are forgetting is that this is only one-half of the story. You are forgetting that men and boys do seek these pages out, in their millions – especially those who are not in relationships with women. And finding material and discussions like those described in Penny's blog attracts and repels different kinds of male contributors. Like calls to like.
Now, it is my belief that those attracted to this type of stuff, those who find it cool, funny or whatever, and who feel at home and comfortable on a site that hosts discussions like this, are less likely to make women feel welcome than the type of man repelled by it.
To give another example, some weeks ago, a Russian-born grandmother complained on Jimbo's English Wikipedia talk page that in response to a harmless search term, Commons had presented her with a masturbation video. And she said, in somewhat broken English, that she could not see how publicising that video helped Wikimedia's charitable mission. She said, "I fail to see any public benefit in public mastrubation. It hurts."
The response she got was remarkable. Another (male) Wikimedian responded,
"When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts?"
That user is an administrator and bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons, based on community vote. (He is, incidentally, also the administrator who kept the donkey punch animation on Commons when it was nominated for deletion.) Do you think this level and mode of discourse is likely to attract women contributors?
You see, the question is not just whether a certain editorial style in sexual articles repels women. The real question is whether that editorial style attracts male editors that women enjoy working with. If you have 4chan discourse and content, you attract a (mostly male) 4chan crowd. If you have Pinterest discourse and content, you attract women.
Andreas
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
.... For an example of a woman exasperated by Wikipedia's handling of sexual content, see this post http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html%C2... blogger Penny Sociologist, which my wife somehow came across.
This concerned a crudely animated cartoon of a woman being struck in the back of the neck during sex, which the blogger had encountered in a Wikipedia article. Here is a quote from her post, commenting on Wikipedia's editorial process:
---o0o---
Let's revisit the serious, consensus-building Discussion page for donkey punching:
Misogynist: "Just want to say that the picture with this article is HILARIOUS!!!
Another Misogynist: "Same here. It made me laugh for a good 10 minutes."
Voice of Reason: "As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I would suggest the current picture is unnecessary and inappropriate and should therefore be removed."
Another Misogynist: "And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up the butt."
Somewhere later down the page, while misogynists coldly discuss the merits of an earlier illustration that wasn't animated, one says: "Preferably the image shouldn't be a cartoon, but actually showing a real couple."
So there you have Wikipedia's "serious discussion" and "consensus" building.
---o0o---
That is, in my opinion, an actionable user behavior problem, even without the gender related issues. Those clearly make it worse, of course.
I will go look it up later, but it's probably too stale to do anything about it now. 8-(
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
That is, in my opinion, an actionable user behavior problem, even without the gender related issues. Those clearly make it worse, of course.
I will go look it up later, but it's probably too stale to do anything about it now. 8-(
I agree it's actionable, and I don't see why it should be stale. People get nabbed for past conduct, especially patterns of conduct, all the time. Maybe can't be hit with a block for that one instance (preventative not punishment, etc. etc., since the Wikipedia culture has quixotically abandoned the notion of the deterrent), but there are other remedies.
* 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...
The best way to make sure an image filter is never implemented on Wikipedia is to have Larry Sanger endorse it :P
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/30/12 9:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
From Larry Sanger's blog:
---o0o---
I want to start a conversation. [...Larry says, in his blog]
I. Problem? What problem?
So, you didn't know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?
Let me say what I do not mean by "Wikipedia's porn problem." I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That's part of the problem, but it's not even the main problem. I'm 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don't even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some "adult content."
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it's even more complicated than that, as I'll explain.
(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)
Here is the short version:
Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.
But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia's porn problem, I'm afraid you're going to have to read the following.
http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-probl...
Feel free to repost!
---o0o---
There is further discussion of this, with Larry in attendance, on Wikipediocracy.com:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=429 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=429
Note that the related thread is in the "Sexualisation" subforum, which is only accessible to registered Wikipediocracy members. Registration is free though, and anyone wishing to have a look is welcome to join up and participate!
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, it got Jimmy and Larry talking. They have been exchanging tweets. :)
Also on Twitter, Larry got a thumbs-up from Andrew Lih:
https://twitter.com/fuzheado/status/207747029743583233
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
The best way to make sure an image filter is never implemented on Wikipedia is to have Larry Sanger endorse it :P
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/30/12 9:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
From Larry Sanger's blog:
---o0o---
I want to start a conversation. [...Larry says, in his blog]
I. Problem? What problem?
So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?
Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.”
No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.
(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)
Here is the short version:
Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.
But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following.
http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-probl...
Feel free to repost!
---o0o---
There is further discussion of this, with Larry in attendance, on Wikipediocracy.com:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=429
Note that the related thread is in the "Sexualisation" subforum, which is only accessible to registered Wikipediocracy members. Registration is free though, and anyone wishing to have a look is welcome to join up and participate!
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap