On 3 Apr 2006, at 05:52, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

In some countries it's also illegal to show a penis or someone masturbating and we won't have those images deleted from their respective articles any time soon. I don't think you can call it surprising the reader when they know what article they're visiting either.

Perhaps, you'll have a better chance of asking this image to be replaced with one that doesn't contain an SM bear and dildo.

Its not the bear and dildo that are illegal in my jurisdiction (UK). Child pornography is illegal even if it is simulated or drawn rather than taken from life.

Now if it was a free picture, not a copyrighted one with a somewhat dubious fair use claim I might feel inclined to defend it.

Note that I havent actually looked at the picture as being put on the Sex Offenders Register would seriously impair my ability to take (free) photographs for wikipedia.

Justinc

On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

Now if it was a free picture, not a copyrighted one with a somewhat dubious fair use claim I might feel inclined to defend it.

I agree with this. I would be much more inclined to defend this image if we weren't already bending over backwards, both legally and morally, to justify its inclusion. I don't believe that Wikipedia should be censored either but we have to draw the line somewhere, and fair use child porn ought to be outside the boundary.

Ryan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Since this is fair use, why can't an admin just remove it from the article (as there are better free alternatives) and then speedy it under CSD IM5?

Cynical

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

herostratus@comcast.net wrote: <snip stuff about "that image">

FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

---

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 3 Apr 2006, at 12:13, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

I think we can make a good fair use claim for the image. It illustrates the article and as far as I can determine, there's no free alternatives. If there are, they need to be used instead of the current one, before we can properly delete it.

Read Alphax's mail. There is a free alternative.

Justinc

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

...

Read Alphax's mail. There is a free alternative.

Can I get a link?

Thanks to Tony Sidaway for finding them for me (scroll down in thread):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

On 03/04/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:

herostratus@comcast.net wrote: <snip stuff about "that image">

FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

Might be worth finding the WP:POINT stick...

That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of these changes are reverted on sight...

-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

On 4/3/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:

...

FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of these changes are reverted on sight...

IMHO, raising "copyvio" or "free use" arguments in this case is sort of missing the point. We should be adamant about deleting the image because we don't want child porn in Wikipedia (or, to be more precise, we don't want people to think that we have child porn in Wikipedia). If the same image was public domain, what would we do?

Steve

On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

It appears that as a cartoon it is probably not illegal in the UK under the recent child protection acts (although it might be covered by wider obscenity laws). It is however probably illegal in New Zealand, so if someone there would like to report it to the police I imagine it will disappear rather quickly. The publicity will not be nice.

Again, legality isn't really the issue. We have lots of illegal material on Wikipedia. But yeah, I really don't want to be reading about how one of our articles has an image of a seven year old being raped in the paper tomorrow.

Steve

On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

Do we? I dont actually know of anything else that is a criminal offence in a major country which has general laws protecting free speech, where Jimbo is likely to visit and wouldnt like to be arrested on entry. And where we have an article about the law in question. Maybe we should use the picture to illustrate this?

Sorry, you're correct, I meant we have plenty of examples of copyright violation. Which is not, as you point out, a criminal offence.

Steve

On 4/3/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:

With this article using the other less offensive image [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

That is still a non-free image. We do have at least two free images that could be used to illustrate that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/3/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:

...

With this article using the other less offensive image [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

That is still a non-free image. We do have at least two free images that could be used to illustrate that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg _______________________________________________

These images were hidden in the talk archive. Didn't saw them at first. Yes, much better. A free image should always be preferable over a fair use one.

Garion

G'day Tony,

On 4/3/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:

...

With this article using the other less offensive image [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

That is still a non-free image. We do have at least two free images that could be used to illustrate that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

I don't get it. What justification did the, ahem, good-faith editors use to argue that we needed fair-use close-ups of kiddie porn instead of the photograph (also, admittedly, of kiddie porn ... but more appropriate and tasteful, if that word can be applied here).

My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be *legal* in Japan? Some people are *really* sick.

My second question is: how on Earth did this shit ever get to be *legal* in Japan? Some people are *really* sick.

Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is financially supporting such assaults).

Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

On Apr 4, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:

...

Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is financially supporting such assaults).

Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

Also, the OP is making a judgment value based on his own cultural biases and preconceptions. There's lot of "weird" stuff that goes on in cultures different than our own ... arranged marriage, marriage of children, marriage of adults to children, eating really strange and weird foods, sharia/oppression of women, etc.

Oppression of women and pedophilia are good things as long as you have different "cultural biases and preconceptions"?

Mark Gallagher wrote:

...

...

With this article using the other less offensive image [[Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg]] would already be an improvement.

That is still a non-free image. We do have at least two free images that could be used to illustrate that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_comicbooks_sold_in_Japan_002.jpg

I don't get it. What justification did the, ahem, good-faith editors use to argue that we needed fair-use close-ups of kiddie porn instead of the photograph (also, admittedly, of kiddie porn ... but more appropriate and tasteful, if that word can be applied here).

I think 'appropriate and tasteful' absolutely can be applied here. The differences in culture between Japan and the rest of the world are a valid topic for an encyclopedia article, and so the *subject* is one which we ought to cover, and some sort of *illustration* can certainly improve the article.

I think the best way to understand 'what justification' is to understand a certain sort of POV pushing... one of the goals of pedophiles is to make the case that such materials are perfectly normal and healthy and should be viewed as being completely routine. One way to achieve that goal is to be sure that such materials are published widely.

This alone is not an automatic argument against including the image, of course! Many images might be included in many articles by people who want to push a POV, but might also be accepted by virtually all editors as being important and relevant to the article.

And this is not an argument that anyone who wants to include this picture rather than another one is a pedophile POV pusher. Indeed, I think a part of the rhetorical trolling that goes on this way is to push people who are opposed to censorship to stand up for editorial nonsense by recasting a serious editorial debate as being merely about censorship or the alleged prudishness of (usually) Americans.

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 4/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:

...

I think the best way to understand 'what justification' is to understand a certain sort of POV pushing... one of the goals of pedophiles is to make the case that such materials are perfectly normal and healthy and should be viewed as being completely routine. One way to achieve that goal is to be sure that such materials are published widely.

Hi Jimbo, A couple of people have taken exception to your references to paedophiles in this debate, and I'd like to join them. Is there any evidence that actual paedophiles were arguing for the inclusion of that image? Or is it just, as you acknowledge, anti-censorship people getting caught up in the argument and crossing the bounds of good taste?

Conflating anti-censorship, anti-prude, anti-common sense, or simply trollish people with paedophiles is unfair at best, and inflammatory and offensive at worst, isn't it?

Look, I for one initially argued keep at IFD, and I don't feel insulted so much as embarrassed that I allowed myself to be blind-sided in such a way, and I think Jimbo's spot on in what he says, and I'm a bit disturbed that a lot of people who weren't involved in this are knocking Jimbo on this point, superficially on my behalf. I don't want people to knock Jimbo on my behalf, I think Sam made the right call, so did Jimbo and I think anyone who can't see that is either as blind sided as I was or just looking for another big stick to hit Jimbo with.

I'd like to apologise once again for getting the wrong end of the stick on this issue, and I would like to see people extend the good faith that everyone involved has extended me by not calling me a complete plonker, which would be well deserved, and extend that good faith to Jimbo, who has already qualified his statement once. Jimbo's thrust, as I read it, was that we shouldn't allow the gaming of the system by those who wish to promote pedophilia, and that those of us for whom censorship and fair use is a hot button topic should be aware that we can be manipulated, and remember the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting censorship or justifying the inclusion of any particular image.

People who's hot button is mistrusting authority should also remember the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting censorship or justifying the inclusion of any particular image.

I'm sorry if people feel my words are too strong, but there it is. I was made to look a fool, and no-one likes that. But I'm not too proud to admit it and I don't see why I should be walking away scott free when Jimbo is getting a hard time.

Now, can I take this hair shirt off, it damn well itches.

Steve Block

Steve Block

I think this is similar to what happens sometimes at pedophilia-related articles. For the most part, we as Wikipedians are drawn to edit articles in which we have a personal interest or stake. Naturally, then, those who disagree with age of consent laws will be drawn to articles such as [[NAMBLA]]. Not only do most other Wikipedians not feel drawn there, they in fact would rather purposefully avoid them because they make them feel icky. (I can certainly attest to that personally.) But in that manner, I have found that sometimes the "consensus" on these types of articles gets skewed. And this makes issues raised on the talk page very difficult to resolve.

k

On 4/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:

Thanks Steve, and I want to make super clear that I think people can in good faith have quite varied opinions on different matters.

What I wanted to point out is that we need to be especially vigilent when we have an area where we know there are POV pushers and trolls who are active. As Erik pointed out, in a lot of cases like this, a tiny turnout at IfD will mean that community consensus is not well reflected, because the POV pushers will show up in force to override the small number of good editors who come by.

Imagine this case: 100 good editors, 80 voting delete, 20 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls

End result: 80 - 28, consensus to delete

versus

10 good editors, 8 voting delete, 2 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls

End result: 8 - 10, no conclusion, image kept

Steve Block wrote:

...

Steve Bennett wrote:

...

On 4/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:

...

I think the best way to understand 'what justification' is to

understand

...

...

...

a certain sort of POV pushing... one of the goals of pedophiles is to make the case that such materials are perfectly normal and healthy and should be viewed as being completely routine. One way to achieve that goal is to be sure that such materials are published widely.

Hi Jimbo, A couple of people have taken exception to your references to paedophiles in this debate, and I'd like to join them. Is there any evidence that actual paedophiles were arguing for the inclusion of that image? Or is it just, as you acknowledge, anti-censorship people getting caught up in the argument and crossing the bounds of good taste?

Conflating anti-censorship, anti-prude, anti-common sense, or simply trollish people with paedophiles is unfair at best, and inflammatory and offensive at worst, isn't it?

Look, I for one initially argued keep at IFD, and I don't feel insulted so much as embarrassed that I allowed myself to be blind-sided in such a way, and I think Jimbo's spot on in what he says, and I'm a bit disturbed that a lot of people who weren't involved in this are knocking Jimbo on this point, superficially on my behalf. I don't want people to knock Jimbo on my behalf, I think Sam made the right call, so did Jimbo and I think anyone who can't see that is either as blind sided as I was or just looking for another big stick to hit Jimbo with.

I'd like to apologise once again for getting the wrong end of the stick on this issue, and I would like to see people extend the good faith that everyone involved has extended me by not calling me a complete plonker, which would be well deserved, and extend that good faith to Jimbo, who has already qualified his statement once. Jimbo's thrust, as I read it, was that we shouldn't allow the gaming of the system by those who wish to promote pedophilia, and that those of us for whom censorship and fair use is a hot button topic should be aware that we can be manipulated, and remember the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting censorship or justifying the inclusion of any particular image.

People who's hot button is mistrusting authority should also remember the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting censorship or justifying the inclusion of any particular image.

I'm sorry if people feel my words are too strong, but there it is. I was made to look a fool, and no-one likes that. But I'm not too proud to admit it and I don't see why I should be walking away scott free when Jimbo is getting a hard time.

Now, can I take this hair shirt off, it damn well itches.

Steve Block

Steve Block

-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'm not sure that I would support anything that sounds as binding as an "article arbitration committee," but I have for a long time felt that it would be wise to establish a cadre of admins that form an "NPOV brigade" who could be called upon to look at and weigh in on content disputes as a means of breaking a stalemate. It's definitely a need on Wikipedia that isn't being filled, as is evidenced by the amount of content RFArs getting filed lately. RFC rarely works, but only because it doesn't generate enough interest, IMO.

k

On 4/6/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:

Katefan0 wrote:

...

I think this is similar to what happens sometimes at pedophilia-related articles. For the most part, we as Wikipedians are drawn to edit

articles

...

in which we have a personal interest or stake. Naturally, then, those

who

...

disagree with age of consent laws will be drawn to articles such as [[NAMBLA]]. Not only do most other Wikipedians not feel drawn there,

they

...

in fact would rather purposefully avoid them because they make them feel icky. (I can certainly attest to that personally.) But in that manner,

I

...

have found that sometimes the "consensus" on these types of articles

gets

...

skewed. And this makes issues raised on the talk page very difficult to resolve.

I noted a while back at the pump that the article branch of requests for comment wasn't serving it's purpose anymore, and that it should get moved to the pump as [[Village pump (article)]]. Sadly, and a little ironically, I got no discussion at the pump, and I'm starting to wonder if the community is so big it is beginning to fracture. There needs to be a high profile way of grabbing editor attention and getting a reflective consensus on issues. I'm starting to agree with the idea of a parliament or maybe an article arbitration commitee. Any thoughts?

Steve block

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 05/04/06

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

So you basically want a group of admins with no experience in editing the article concerned to vote-stack any content disputes?

RFC generates plenty of interest, the problem is that it has no 'teeth' - - there is nothing to stop the party who 'loses' an RFC from ignoring its conclusions.

Cynical

Katefan0 wrote:

I have for a long time felt that it

would be wise to establish a cadre of admins that form an "NPOV brigade" who could be called upon to look at and weigh in on content disputes as a means of breaking a stalemate. It's definitely a need on Wikipedia that isn't being filled, as is evidenced by the amount of content RFArs getting filed lately. RFC rarely works, but only because it doesn't generate enough interest, IMO.

k

On 4/6/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:

...

Katefan0 wrote:

...

I think this is similar to what happens sometimes at pedophilia-related articles. For the most part, we as Wikipedians are drawn to edit

articles

...

in which we have a personal interest or stake. Naturally, then, those

who

...

disagree with age of consent laws will be drawn to articles such as [[NAMBLA]]. Not only do most other Wikipedians not feel drawn there,

they

...

in fact would rather purposefully avoid them because they make them feel icky. (I can certainly attest to that personally.) But in that manner,

I

...

have found that sometimes the "consensus" on these types of articles

gets

...

skewed. And this makes issues raised on the talk page very difficult to resolve.

I noted a while back at the pump that the article branch of requests for comment wasn't serving it's purpose anymore, and that it should get moved to the pump as [[Village pump (article)]]. Sadly, and a little ironically, I got no discussion at the pump, and I'm starting to wonder if the community is so big it is beginning to fracture. There needs to be a high profile way of grabbing editor attention and getting a reflective consensus on issues. I'm starting to agree with the idea of a parliament or maybe an article arbitration commitee. Any thoughts?

Steve block

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 05/04/06

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/6/06, David Alexander Russell > RFC generates plenty of interest, the problem is that it has no 'teeth'

• • there is nothing to stop the party who 'loses' an RFC from ignoring

its conclusions.

I don't know about practice, but there are surely means whereby the side that can demonstrate consensus is on its side has the advantage. Particularly in RfAr if it came to that.

Steve

On 4/7/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:

No, I think what's being asked for is a group of people who will apply policy in a neutral way. The votes are already stacked, that's the purpose of having policy; policy is the vote stacking tool, not the group of editors. RFC provides no comment, at least not at articles I've listed on it. Actually, if I'm honest, I'm finding more and more that Wikipedia is imply broken. We've got clear guidance at [[WP:RS]] that message boards aren't acceptable sources, and yet we've got thousands of articles that are relying on just that. Either we need to rewrite our policies and have an anything goes policy, or we need to get a lot tougher in enforcing the key policies.

And if we want to be a serious encyclopaedia, it must be the latter.

-- Sam

At 07:17 -0400 7/4/06, Sydney Poore wrote:

Serious encyclopedia means leaving out material that is not encyclopedic. Too many editors are stretching the meaning of encyclopedic to include anything that can be sourced. During Afd, it is very common for editors to cite tabloids, forums or publicly written dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Since it takes a super majority to delete, often the outcome is no consensus and the material stays.

Sydney

But surely a word, a work or art, a meme, or artifact, can be created today and archived contemporaneously?

On 4/7/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:

Sydney Poore wrote:

...

Serious encyclopedia means leaving out material that is not

encyclopedic. Too many editors are stretching the meaning of encyclopedic to include anything that can be sourced. During Afd, it is very common for editors to cite tabloids, forums or publicly written dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Since it takes a super majority to delete, often the outcome is no consensus and the material stays.

True. I'm currently bogged down in [[LUEshi]], [[UGOPlayer]] [[GameFAQS]] and [[GameFAQs message boards]]. That's before I start on [[Internet Phenomenon]]...etc Steve block

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 06/04/06

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'd like to note that I only know two people off LUE (I'm one myself). One is [[User:TheCoffee]] and the other is [[User:CorbinSimpson]] -- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk

On 4/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:59:41 +0100, you wrote:

...

I'm currently bogged down in [[LUEshi]], [[UGOPlayer]] [[GameFAQS]] and [[GameFAQs message boards]]. That's before I start on [[Internet Phenomenon]]. There's no chance of getting them deleted, simply because of pile on voting, but trying to keep them even pragmatically close to [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] is a nightmare.

So true. And what the hell are we doing with a [[list of YTMND fads]]?

It gives us a useful way of removeing all the individual articles. -- geni

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:03:13 +0100, you wrote:

...

So true. And what the hell are we doing with a [[list of YTMND fads]]?

It gives us a useful way of removeing all the individual articles.

This pisses me off, actually. We deleted the uncited list of obscure sexual terms (read: juvenile protologisms) and now we have a whole series of equally uncited articles on each one, which can't be deleted because that would be "censorship" and because they are on Teh Intarwebs, so it must be true. Guy (JzG)

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 4/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:

...

This pisses me off, actually. We deleted the uncited list of obscure sexual terms (read: juvenile protologisms) and now we have a whole series of equally uncited articles on each one, which can't be deleted because that would be "censorship" and because they are on Teh Intarwebs, so it must be true.

Can't the article be phrased just as you put it. "These are found on [[teh interweb]], but are likely to be [[urban legend]]s." Urban legends can be notable too...

Steve

No can do. We can't cite anything off the old internet without /at least/ knowing the publisher. [[WP:RS]] rejects blogs, forums, etc. because they are either anonymously written, unreliable as secondary sources, or both. The only source with a name that we've dug up is a one-sentence reference to a "Cleveland Steamer" in a San Francisco gossip column that doesn't even explain what the phrase means. The pop culture stuff is probably verifiable, but that means the article's focus should be on a sexual term used predominantly in pop culture, which makes it a Wiktionary article, not a Wikipedia article. We write encyclopaedia articles about topics that have encyclopedic, not etymological, material.

John

David Alexander Russell wrote: <snip>

I'm not seeking a reconsideration of the userbox 'issue' here (thank God/[insert alternative deity of your choice here] that's over), but it shows just how easy it is to ignore policy if you characterise those seeking to uphold policy as trolls, wikilawyers and process wonks.

There's a difference between process wonks and policy wonks:

- Process wonks favour process over policy - Policy wonks favour policy over process

A process wonk will often get the wrong result using the right method. A policy wonk will get the right result using the wrong method. Remember, it's not the letter of the rules which counts, it's the spirit of the rules; hence, making 4 reverts in 25 hours counts as breaking 3RR.

On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

But that's exactly my point. _What the policy says_ is (ie 'if this happens, in this way, then this is the consequence') _all_ that achieved consensus (and therefore all the is enforceable) - anything above and beyond that is not endorsed by the community (or, in the case of decrees, not endorsed by Jimbo unless he subsequently says so) and therefore is not policy. Taking your example, if there was community consensus to extending the 3RR to 25 hours then it would be amended as such.

Cynical

I would like to think that we are moving towards improving our standards. It wasn't so long ago that FAs could be unreferenced. It wasn't that long ago that no one was talking about WP:CITE. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is broken, I'd say that it's becoming fixed. That change isn't going to come overnight, but the changes in that regard that have happened in the time I've been here (~19.5 months) are substantial. Some people have to be hit with a cluestick a bit harder than others, some people won't be able to adapt and will leave the project, but what's important is that we develop our standards and determine what constitute reliable and verifiable sources. In some cases that's going to change over time - the standard on blogs as sources, for example, is evolving as the nature of (some) blogs change. At the same time, it's unlikely for messageboards to be reliable sources (except as a primary source for what was said on the board)

Ian

On 4/8/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:

1. Policy is descriptive --- it *describes* what we already do, it attempts to document consensus. When we look to policy, it's because

IMHO, "policy is descriptive" is misleading. It's actually descriptively prescriptive. That is, it describes what people think we should do. It does not only describe what people actually do. Nor does it prescribe what people should do, without evidence that people actually want that (with a few rare exceptions like WP:OFFICE, that come "straight from the top").

Steve

David Alexander Russell wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Yes, but the problem is people who try to enforce these policies are referred to as 'wikilawyers' and 'process wonks' - see the recent (pre-CSD T1) userbox flamewar, where the people seeking to enforce deletion policy (ie that there was no policy allowing speedying of userboxes) were treated as trolls.

I'm not seeking a reconsideration of the userbox 'issue' here (thank God/[insert alternative deity of your choice here] that's over), but it shows just how easy it is to ignore policy if you characterise those seeking to uphold policy as trolls, wikilawyers and process wonks.

Yeah, I suppose you have a good point there. But then policy and guidelines are descriptive, and being a wiki, actions on the ground can ultimately change policy. What you need is not people who slavishly enforce policy, but people who are prepared to balance the issue, weigh and discuss it, and get an outcome. There are at least thirty editors from whom I'd trust a rough majority decision on an issue. Userbox was a hard issue, there were obvious problems, but no obvious solution. And I think both sides gave as good as they got in that debate. It's a shame we couldn't get a damn compromise through on that. Sometimes, on some issues, I think Wikipedia really has to look at it and say, look, some people will be pissed off whichever way this goes, but we need a decision to end it, and if it means taking a one vote majority so-be-it. Maybe on a slim majority we should implement monthly trials.

Steve block

On 4/6/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:

publication that is delivered to subscribers on a weekly basis? Maybe involvement in Rfc or informally mediating editing disputes could be introduced as one evaluating criteria for promotion to administrator. As an experiment I might start mentioning it on RFAs.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than discriminating on the basis of % of edit summary usage.

Steve

Jimmy Wales wrote:

Thanks Steve, and I want to make super clear that I think people can in good faith have quite varied opinions on different matters.

What I wanted to point out is that we need to be especially vigilent when we have an area where we know there are POV pushers and trolls who are active. As Erik pointed out, in a lot of cases like this, a tiny turnout at IfD will mean that community consensus is not well reflected, because the POV pushers will show up in force to override the small number of good editors who come by.

Imagine this case: 100 good editors, 80 voting delete, 20 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls

End result: 80 - 28, consensus to delete

versus

10 good editors, 8 voting delete, 2 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls

End result: 8 - 10, no conclusion, image kept

Such results are plausible, but establishing a series of rules just to deal with trolls and POV pushers is not likely to be productive. It would be far better to allow them their votes, but to marginalize the effects of their votes. This constant group of 8 miscreants seems to be winning in the second example because they were quick off the mark with putting in their votes. Keeping votes open indefinitely will mean that they can't use their quickness to their advantage. If the image is meant to be deleted the Wisdom of Crowds will prevail over an extended period of time.

Ec

On 3 Apr 2006, at 12:06, Andrew Gray wrote:

On 03/04/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:

...

herostratus@comcast.net wrote: <snip stuff about "that image">

FWIW, Rama got a friend to take some nice montages of magazines in a store - but did they go into the article? No. There is something fundamentally wrong when we're willing to accept a potentially offensive copyvio (which we justify under "fair use") over a neutral, Free image.

Might be worth finding the WP:POINT stick...

That said, people have a hard time accepting "replace fair use" at the best of times. I've been wandering through various articles where we're bound to have free images in the last couple of days and replacing the fair-use ones with free. It's surprising how many of these changes are reverted on sight...

Thats because "fair use" and non free content are corrupting wikipedia. People do not understand we are supposed to be making a free encyclopaedia any more, because there is so much non free content in it. They think we are trying to make a really good encyclopaedia.

Quite understandable alas. We need to go back to making a free encyclopaedia which means deleting tens or hundreds of thousands of non free images.

Its just wasting our time, and causing a huge distraction from the purpose of wikipedia.

Justinc

Obviously, I don't think it is child pornography. This is a lolicon drawing. It is clear that it is not a real child.

To be clear, I think the image is horrible because it shows the sexual exploitation of a child in a benign manner. Pro-pedophilia groups argue that children consent to and enjoy sex with adults. This is horrible. Using of this photo to make it clear what pro-pedophilia want to be available is a good thing. Sydney aka FloNight

Justin Cormack wrote:

On 3 Apr 2006, at 13:24, SP wrote:

...

I also have a slightly different opinion on the use of this photo (or a similar free one) for educational purposes. While the image itself is horrible because it depicts the sexual exploitation of a child, its use for educational purposes is not horrible. It is one of the least offensive images available to illustrates the sexual exploitation of a child. There are ways to make it obvious that it is being used for educational purposes. Displaying the image lower on the page, reducing the size of the image or using a link are possibilities. It has not been used that way on Wikipedia and that is the problem. There are editors arguing for the inclusion of the image because there is nothing offensive about the image. These comments will get use close scrutiny from groups like Perverted Justice. I don't know how it fix that as long as we permit open discussion on talk pages.

And why exactly is it necessary to use an image. Surely this is a case where a word is better than a thousand images.

Educational use is not a permitted exemption for showing child pornography in any jurisdiction.

Justinc

On 4/3/06, SP poore5@adelphia.net wrote:

Obviously, I don't think it is child pornography. This is a lolicon drawing. It is clear that it is not a real child.

Under some juristictions, including mine, even a cartoon version of child pornography counts as child pornography. From the description, I'd guess that this image would be enough to put you on the Sex Offenders Register for some time. That to me is an excellent reason for deletion.

-- Sam

On 3 Apr 2006, at 14:09, SP wrote:

Sam, my understanding that the image passed the legal test in prior image for deletion discussions. If that is not true then it should be deleted.

It passes *in the US*.

Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

"In New Zealand any material that promotes or supports the sexual exploitation of children or young people, or tends to promote or support it, is considered 'objectionable' and is illegal. The definition can apply to text (including fiction), art, cartoons, still images or moving images. It can also apply to images of adult models who appear to be younger than their actual age. Few other countries have such broad definitions of child pornography.

Possession of child pornography is an offence punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Distribution of child pornography is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. These penalties were introduced in 2005, following widespread concern that New Zealand's penalties were too lenient. Previously, penalties were a NZ$2,000 fine for possession and 1 year's imprisonment for distribution.

Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world. They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes those who import child pornography."

On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

Jimbo is liable for 10 years imprisonment should he ever visit New Zealand.

<snip>

Domestic enforcement of child pornography laws is primarily conducted by Inspectors of the Department of Internal Affairs. They monitor New Zealanders trading child pornography online and in the real world. They have a near 100% conviction rate for child pornography offenders and enjoy excellent co-operative relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies. The New Zealand Customs Service prosecutes those who import child pornography."

Well, he's not a New Zealander. Our article is a bit vague on who else it applies to. I doubt that someone who had broken a New Zealand law overseas would be chargeable simply for visiting NZ. Or maybe you meant, if he visited NZ while the site was still hosted on his server...still iffy. And why is Jimbo the only culprit? Wouldn't the person who actually added it be at least as guilty?

Steve