If your definition of "trolling" is doing something to provoke a reaction... I plead guilty, yes. There was no other way to do it given the groupthink attitude towards dissent on certain topics.
This is a standing offer to anyone that wants to take me up on it: I will answer any question you have, save for my real Wikipedia name, as completely as I can.
I am making this offer in good faith. Yes, I violated policy. I believe I had good reason to. I may have made an error in judgement letting it go on that long, but that is something I have to live with and learn from.
A. Nony Mouse
On 8/10/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
*sigh*, so in other words you are a troll? Your actions really piss me off, but of course that's what you wanted. :(
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
If your definition of "trolling" is doing something to provoke a reaction... I plead guilty, yes. There was no other way to do it given the groupthink attitude towards dissent on certain topics.
This is a standing offer to anyone that wants to take me up on it: I will answer any question you have, save for my real Wikipedia name, as completely as I can.
1. How long have you been an editor? 2. Are you an admin? 3. Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
There's quite a stink going on about this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]] and its ensuing VfD. I think the project is totally bogus and un-Wiki, but I'm interested in what some other people (Jimbo, although I somehow doubt he would want to go near this one) have to say about it.
Anyway, I pity the admin who closes that VfD.
- Ryan
On 8/17/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
There's quite a stink going on about this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]] and its ensuing VfD. I think the project is totally bogus and un-Wiki, but I'm interested in what some other people (Jimbo, although I somehow doubt he would want to go near this one) have to say about it.
Anyway, I pity the admin who closes that VfD.
- Ryan
Well I just blocked -Ril- for 24 hours for his edit warring there, repeatedly placing numerous pornographic images there in violation of [[WP:POINT]] but also, I would say, classifiable as vandalism. I don't know why he couldn't just wait until the VfD closed.
Violet/Riga
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Violet/Riga wrote:
On 8/17/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
There's quite a stink going on about this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]] and its ensuing VfD. I think the project is totally bogus and un-Wiki, but I'm interested in what some other people (Jimbo, although I somehow doubt he would want to go near this one) have to say about it.
Anyway, I pity the admin who closes that VfD.
- Ryan
Well I just blocked -Ril- for 24 hours for his edit warring there, repeatedly placing numerous pornographic images there in violation of [[WP:POINT]] but also, I would say, classifiable as vandalism. I don't know why he couldn't just wait until the VfD closed.
I'm not surprised. Not only is there an active RfC concerning him, but an open RfAr. His style of debate has been creating an unnecessary amount of dissatisfaction; it's likely a sign that he is one of these "brittle" contributors (to use the word from another thread).
Disclaimer: Yes, I have contributed material towards both. However, I learned of both by accident; there is no organized group out to get -Ril-, just an increasing number of people who have grown weary of him. And many of whom no longer care -- if they ever did -- that David has determined he is not a sockpuppet for Lir.
Geoff Geoff
Geoff Burling (llywrch@agora.rdrop.com) [050818 20:35]:
Disclaimer: Yes, I have contributed material towards both. However, I learned of both by accident; there is no organized group out to get -Ril-, just an increasing number of people who have grown weary of him. And many of whom no longer care -- if they ever did -- that David has determined he is not a sockpuppet for Lir.
To be precise, I could see no evidence he was. I should add that -Ril- doesn't edit anything like Lir IMO - I see no reason to assume -Ril- is anything other than what he appears and claims to be, an ordinary good-faith editor with a strong interest in ancient Egypt, who has unfortunately been conflicting with quite a few people (whoever may be considered to "blame" for this).
- d.
On 8/18/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
To be precise, I could see no evidence he was. I should add that -Ril- doesn't edit anything like Lir IMO - I see no reason to assume -Ril- is anything other than what he appears and claims to be, an ordinary good-faith editor with a strong interest in ancient Egypt, who has unfortunately been conflicting with quite a few people (whoever may be considered to "blame" for this).
- d.
And the name.
Sam
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling (llywrch@agora.rdrop.com) [050818 20:35]:
Disclaimer: Yes, I have contributed material towards both. However, I learned of both by accident; there is no organized group out to get -Ril-, just an increasing number of people who have grown weary of him. And many of whom no longer care -- if they ever did -- that David has determined he is not a sockpuppet for Lir.
To be precise, I could see no evidence he was. I should add that -Ril- doesn't edit anything like Lir IMO - I see no reason to assume -Ril- is anything other than what he appears and claims to be, an ordinary good-faith editor with a strong interest in ancient Egypt, who has unfortunately been conflicting with quite a few people (whoever may be considered to "blame" for this).
And for the record, from his style alone I never thought he was Lir. -Ril- has always demonstrated that he is informed or knowledgable -- but resolutely opinionated about the articles he contributes to.
He has simply repeated this exoneration enough times -- & in at least one circumstance where it wasn't relevant -- that he is in danger of raising people's suspicions that he _might_ actually be Lir unless he stops. Or at least should someone mention it, limit his response to a terse reply like "That was proven false; look at my Talk page for the details."
I didn't mean to cast doubt on David's abilities, & apologize if I gave that impression.
Geoff
Could it be possible that Lir was gone enough to have developed a completely different style before coming back as -Ril-? Who in there right mind would pick a nick so similar to someone that's banned?
On 8/18/05, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling (llywrch@agora.rdrop.com) [050818 20:35]:
Disclaimer: Yes, I have contributed material towards both. However, I learned of both by accident; there is no organized group out to get -Ril-, just an increasing number of people who have grown weary of him. And many of whom no longer care -- if they ever did -- that David has determined he is not a sockpuppet for Lir.
To be precise, I could see no evidence he was. I should add that -Ril- doesn't edit anything like Lir IMO - I see no reason to assume -Ril- is anything other than what he appears and claims to be, an ordinary good-faith editor with a strong interest in ancient Egypt, who has unfortunately been conflicting with quite a few people (whoever may be considered to "blame" for this).
And for the record, from his style alone I never thought he was Lir. -Ril- has always demonstrated that he is informed or knowledgable -- but resolutely opinionated about the articles he contributes to.
He has simply repeated this exoneration enough times -- & in at least one circumstance where it wasn't relevant -- that he is in danger of raising people's suspicions that he _might_ actually be Lir unless he stops. Or at least should someone mention it, limit his response to a terse reply like "That was proven false; look at my Talk page for the details."
I didn't mean to cast doubt on David's abilities, & apologize if I gave that impression.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/08/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Could it be possible that Lir was gone enough to have developed a completely different style before coming back as -Ril-? Who in there right mind would pick a nick so similar to someone that's banned?
Huh. Who, in their right mind, would familiarise themselves enough with the project to know about the banning of users, understand the general bias against use of strongly similar names, and check against the full list of banned users... before even registering an account, which we encourage them to do at the earliest opportunity?
(I don't even know where to *find* a list of banned users, and I've been here best part of a year.)
There are very few contexts where this is relevant - either they're already a familiarised user, in which case they're 99% sure to have registered already - so picking another username would be a red flag regardless - or they're new, in which case it is rather optomistic to expect them to go and look for hours for a page telling them what not to do.
Well, assuming he really is not a sockpuppet of anyone, he probably tried to use the name Ril, found it was in use, and put those dashes in. If he looked at the profile of ril he would have noticed he was banned, right? Anyway, it's probably a bad idea to use any name excessively similar to anyone elses name, in my opinion. But yes, you are somewhat right, and we should assume the name is in good faith. (Is that enough to force a name change by the way, assuming he survives arbcom?)
On 8/18/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/08/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Could it be possible that Lir was gone enough to have developed a completely different style before coming back as -Ril-? Who in there right mind would pick a nick so similar to someone that's banned?
Huh. Who, in their right mind, would familiarise themselves enough with the project to know about the banning of users, understand the general bias against use of strongly similar names, and check against the full list of banned users... before even registering an account, which we encourage them to do at the earliest opportunity?
(I don't even know where to *find* a list of banned users, and I've been here best part of a year.)
There are very few contexts where this is relevant - either they're already a familiarised user, in which case they're 99% sure to have registered already - so picking another username would be a red flag regardless - or they're new, in which case it is rather optomistic to expect them to go and look for hours for a page telling them what not to do.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/18/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Well, assuming he really is not a sockpuppet of anyone, he probably tried to use the name Ril, found it was in use, and put those dashes in. If he looked at the profile of ril he would have noticed he was banned, right?
You're expecting too much of someone new to the project creating a username. When you have a preferred online 'handle' and you try to register at a site and find your usual name is taken, would you just try a variation on it? I think most of us would. I doubt he looked at the user's page - he just got a 'that name already exists' at the account creation screen.
Anyway, it's probably a bad idea to use any name excessively similar to anyone elses name, in my opinion. But yes, you are somewhat right, and we should assume the name is in good faith. (Is that enough to force a name change by the way, assuming he survives arbcom?)
No, it is not. We do not enforce any 'names must be sufficiently dissimilar' rule between two active users; it would be wrong to make the names of banned users MORE protected than those who contribute to the project.
-Matt
ok. Personally, no combination of my pseudonym would look good, in my opinion. :)
On 8/19/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Well, assuming he really is not a sockpuppet of anyone, he probably tried to use the name Ril, found it was in use, and put those dashes in. If he looked at the profile of ril he would have noticed he was banned, right?
You're expecting too much of someone new to the project creating a username. When you have a preferred online 'handle' and you try to register at a site and find your usual name is taken, would you just try a variation on it? I think most of us would. I doubt he looked at the user's page - he just got a 'that name already exists' at the account creation screen.
Anyway, it's probably a bad idea to use any name excessively similar to anyone elses name, in my opinion. But yes, you are somewhat right, and we should assume the name is in good faith. (Is that enough to force a name change by the way, assuming he survives arbcom?)
No, it is not. We do not enforce any 'names must be sufficiently dissimilar' rule between two active users; it would be wrong to make the names of banned users MORE protected than those who contribute to the project.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/18/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(I don't even know where to *find* a list of banned users, and I've been here best part of a year.)
[[Wikipedia:List of banned users]]? No it can't be, that'd be too obvious.
--gkhan
[My apologies to Oskar, who gets this twice 'cause I screwed up]
On 20/08/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(I don't even know where to *find* a list of banned users, and I've been here best part of a year.)
[[Wikipedia:List of banned users]]? No it can't be, that'd be too obvious.
I suppose I should have thought of that as soon as I sent it...
Nonetheless, I think my point still stands. There's no plausible reason I'd know to go looking for that page as a new user - indeed, there's no real reason I'd be likely to know about banning.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Phroziac wrote:
Could it be possible that Lir was gone enough to have developed a completely different style before coming back as -Ril-? Who in there right mind would pick a nick so similar to someone that's banned?
I must be the only person on Wikipedia who saw -Ril-'s nick, & did not immediately think of Lir.
Then again, I know Lir mostly by reputation not from having interacted with hir[*], although I have editted enough of Lir's articles to be familiar with hir style: for one thing, Lir's contributions are about what I expect a 13-year-old to contribute (my apologies to all 13-year-olds who have made useful contributions to Wikipedia), & -Ril- writes at a much more informed & literate level.
In any case, the matter is over & done with. Unless someone provides clear proof that they are the same person, let's move on to another issue -- which is something both Lir & -Ril- seem unable to do.
Geoff
[*] "hir" is a proposed gender-indefinite pronoun that I've seen used in some Usenet groups, years ago. Many people dislike it. Lir has claimed in the past to be a woman in a man's body; I feel its use in reference to Lir is appropriate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
geni wrote:
I must be the only person on Wikipedia who saw -Ril-'s nick, & did not immediately think of Lir.
not quite
Me neither. My first thought was somewhere completely different...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Hi Folks,
For some reason, the following link triggers a spam filter. Could somebody rectify this please?
It works OK for me so I guess that someone else already fixed it.
Theo
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:08:56 +0100, Jake Waskett wrote:
For some reason, the following link triggers a spam filter. Could somebody rectify this please?
There isn't an automated spam filter on Wikipedia. If you are saying that someone removed it as spam, then it would probably be most helpful if you linked to the page from which it was removed, which would let us know who removed it and why.
FF
On 8/17/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hi Folks,
For some reason, the following link triggers a spam filter. Could somebody rectify this please?
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-20.htm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, there is. There is a list of sites on Meta which may not exist as links in any Wikimedia sites. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
However, earlychristianwritings.com isn't, and doesn't seem ever to have been, on that list.
Sam
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
There isn't an automated spam filter on Wikipedia. If you are saying that someone removed it as spam, then it would probably be most helpful if you linked to the page from which it was removed, which would let us know who removed it and why.
FF
On 8/17/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hi Folks,
For some reason, the following link triggers a spam filter. Could somebody rectify this please?
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-20.htm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/08/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there is. There is a list of sites on Meta which may not exist as links in any Wikimedia sites. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
However, earlychristianwritings.com isn't, and doesn't seem ever to have been, on that list.
Hm. That's odd - it was definitely blocked earlier, I tested it, but I couldn't find anything matching on the list either. And now it's not blocked anymore, but the list hasnt changed.
I've had an error w the spam filter before too. It went pretty much example the same as what you describe, w a certain link triggering the spam filter warning, despite it not being listed @ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist Then, later, it worked.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 16:14, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 17/08/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there is. There is a list of sites on Meta which may not exist as links in any Wikimedia sites. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
However, earlychristianwritings.com isn't, and doesn't seem ever to have been, on that list.
Hm. That's odd - it was definitely blocked earlier, I tested it, but I couldn't find anything matching on the list either. And now it's not blocked anymore, but the list hasnt changed.
Thanks folks. I think that this phenomenon deserves a name. Can I propose polterwiki?
Well, you learn something new every day!
FF
On 8/17/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there is. There is a list of sites on Meta which may not exist as links in any Wikimedia sites. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
However, earlychristianwritings.com isn't, and doesn't seem ever to have been, on that list.
Sam
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
There isn't an automated spam filter on Wikipedia. If you are saying that someone removed it as spam, then it would probably be most helpful if you linked to the page from which it was removed, which would let us know who removed it and why.
FF
On 8/17/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hi Folks,
For some reason, the following link triggers a spam filter. Could somebody rectify this please?
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-20.htm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
There isn't an automated spam filter on Wikipedia. If you are saying that someone removed it as spam, then it would probably be most helpful if you linked to the page from which it was removed, which would let us know who removed it and why.
Actually, yes, there is. There is a list of "unacceptable" urls, the inclusion of any of which into an article will cause the edit to be refused. The devs maintain that list; I forget where it's kept.
Kelly
On 8/17/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
There's quite a stink going on about this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]] and its ensuing VfD. I think the project is totally bogus and un-Wiki, but I'm interested in what some other people (Jimbo, although I somehow doubt he would want to go near this one) have to say about it.
Anyway, I pity the admin who closes that VfD.
- Ryan
wikipedia hs been run by super majority for some time. It is to expected that policticall parties will form
That's a pretty ugly discussion, but reading over their (somewhat misguided) page does bring up one possible addition to the discussion on "inappropriate" images which I didn't see raised before.
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
Now this isn't a plea to delete such images; it's a point of departure for thinking about them. If images which would very likely count as "obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law (blame U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most countries).
Well.. it's a thought. I'm not interested in playing nanny to the world but I am interested in Wikipedia being legally safe. An additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to think about.
FF
On 8/17/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
There's quite a stink going on about this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]] and its ensuing VfD. I think the project is totally bogus and un-Wiki, but I'm interested in what some other people (Jimbo, although I somehow doubt he would want to go near this one) have to say about it.
Anyway, I pity the admin who closes that VfD.
- Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty ugly discussion, but reading over their (somewhat misguided) page does bring up one possible addition to the discussion on "inappropriate" images which I didn't see raised before.
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are obscene.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an encylopedia.
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are obscene.
It is a reasonable state on these matters, and in any event the controlling law in this sort of matter is generally the U.S. constitution (First Amendment).
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
I agree completely.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an encylopedia.
I think this is very well put.
In many cases the distinction between an appropriate illustration and inappropriate pornography is a matter of style, of editorial taste and judgment. This may sound like a useless non-answer, but it's the exact same answer we routinely employ in our process of determining what articles should say. We think about it, discuss it, try to get consensus, try to find the best way to *get it right*.
--Jimbo
I agree about a penis not being obscene, but it's unfortunately commonly used as a shock picture, for vandalism. But of course, if it wasn't there, they'd just upload it for the vandalism, so no problem.
What really bugs me is when people screw up pictures to make them "less offensive". This means making it black and white, blurring out parts or all of the picture, making the thumbnail 10px and at the bottom of the page where nobody could possible see it, etc.
On 8/17/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty ugly discussion, but reading over their (somewhat misguided) page does bring up one possible addition to the discussion on "inappropriate" images which I didn't see raised before.
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are obscene.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an encylopedia.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I wonder how many people objected to obscenity in for example, the old Sears catalogs, or ads showing mini-skirts, etc. It seems difficult enough to assert free use by limiting fair use. But add to that a value judgement based on taste seems a bit out of character of maximizing free use. Either its open or its not, either its free or not, seemed to have been the standard directions on the compass.
Granted, some images are controversial, but that likewise makes them either or both newsworthy and encyclopedic. [[Virgin Killer]] or [[Houses of the Holy]] (what happened to the real controversial Zeppelin one?) might be objected to for inclusion on WP, but only on the basis of the same puritanical (ie. "moral") grounds which made it controversial or noteworthy to begin with. Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, "The great encyclopedists of the world are never Puritans, and seldom respectable. No virtuous man --that is, virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense --has ever written an encyclopedia worth reading..."
But not to come across as being too libertine, I strongly agree with those who wish to immediately remove all facials images from Wikipedia --though even such agreeable censorship might contradict the goal of documenting and representing a rather climactic aspect of commercialized human sexuality, and not to mention the seeding interest for establishing the internet in the first place.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I don't mind nudity, genitals, nipples etc. and I don't think most people, even in Alabama, Iran or Bugabooland do. Well, maybe Iran - I don't know. I *do* mind pictures of pregnant women stabbed to death, even when topical and illustrative. Thus I don't think Charles Manson related pages should contain such pictures. Nor do I think we should link to shock sites featuring such material without warning and I removed one external link like that the other day.
Regards, Haukur
Sorry to bother anybody, but I'm perplexed. Can anyone tell me how to find the licensing information and identity of whoever uploaded an image?
Thanks in advance
Jake
Yes you can. All information about an image can be found in the image description page which you can reach by clicking the image in question.
--Mgm
On 8/19/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Sorry to bother anybody, but I'm perplexed. Can anyone tell me how to find the licensing information and identity of whoever uploaded an image?
Thanks in advance
Jake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 19/08/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Sorry to bother anybody, but I'm perplexed. Can anyone tell me how to find the licensing information and identity of whoever uploaded an image?
Click on the image, and you go to a page with a name like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Filename.jpg
This should have, at the bottom, a tag saying the image license, and a log showing the user who uploaded it.
On Friday 19 August 2005 18:46, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 19/08/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Sorry to bother anybody, but I'm perplexed. Can anyone tell me how to find the licensing information and identity of whoever uploaded an image?
Click on the image, and you go to a page with a name like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Filename.jpg
This should have, at the bottom, a tag saying the image license, and a log showing the user who uploaded it.
Thanks Andrew and Mgm.
On 8/19/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Sorry to bother anybody, but I'm perplexed. Can anyone tell me how to find the licensing information and identity of whoever uploaded an image?
Click on the image, and you go to a page with a name like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Filename.jpg
This should have, at the bottom, a tag saying the image license, and a log showing the user who uploaded it.
Thanks Andrew and Mgm.
I'll just add that in case this image was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, you will only see the licence information and you will have to click on the Commons warning and access the commons page to see who uploaded the image. Transclusion of image information from commons only show licence infomation and description on the various projects pages.
Side note: This is one more reason not to forget to state the author in an "author" line on the information page when uploading an image on Commons, rather than just a "taken by self" which is too often seen. ;-)
Best,
Delphine
Fastfission wrote:
If images which would very likely count as "obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law (blame U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most countries).
I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States. We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.
It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia. And our own internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.
One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.
An additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to think about.
I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not* apply to models who are merely nude. It applies, and I would have to look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this, but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on [[autofellatio]] unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from the models (and I'm not). But this does not apply to drawings, which is what we have there now, for better or worse.
--Jimbo
On 8/17/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States. We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.
It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia. And our own internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.
Well, I'm sure you mean that (about the nipple) with certain qualifications, but I understand your point. Looking at the law in particular more specifically, it seems to have exceptions for educational purposes, which would rule out any problem anyway.
I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not* apply to models who are merely nude. It applies, and I would have to look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this, but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on [[autofellatio]] unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from the models (and I'm not). But this does not apply to drawings, which is what we have there now, for better or worse.
Well, there is a rather crude one of a woman with a vibrator on that decency page, though I imagine it will be deleted soon anyway as its copyright information is dubious and incomplete (it was simply labled "public domain" without explanation). But it is what sparked this question to mind in particular.
But anyway, thank you for the clarifications -- I had a feeling you would know a bit about this realm of legal information. ;-)
FF
Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they think aren't "decent", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&am...
Jay.
I just nominated the template for deletion, given the huge numbers of talk pages it has been used to spam.
Sam
On 8/17/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they think aren't "decent", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&am...
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/08/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Regardless of what one thinks of the project itself, I'm none too keen on project members placing huge defacing templates on the top of articles they think aren't "decent", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality&diff=21246382&am...
A lot of the more objectionable stuff about this project is being done by anons - I suspect it's just a delight for people wanting to troll both sides...
Thanks for responding. I have added the contents of this email to the [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency]]. If there is a problem with reposting material from this mailing list, please remove it.
- Ryan
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
If images which would very likely count as "obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law (blame U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most countries).
I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States. We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.
It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia. And our own internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.
One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.
An additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to think about.
I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not* apply to models who are merely nude. It applies, and I would have to look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this, but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on [[autofellatio]] unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from the models (and I'm not). But this does not apply to drawings, which is what we have there now, for better or worse.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
See [[Miller test]]. Wikipedia would fail to meet the definition of obscene in the U.S. no matter what specific images we host due to the third critera: "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Laurascudder
On 8/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
- How long have you been an editor?
I've been editing off and on since January 2003.
- Are you an admin?
No. I was nominated once but I turned down the nomination. It makes you too jaded over time.
- Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?
The experiment has run its course, with results far beyond what I could have anticipated. I won't be doing it again.
A. Nony Mouse
Is your first name Jason, or your last name Boothy, or the end of your username ending with 443, by any chance?
On 8/17/05, A. Nony Mouse mousyme@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
- How long have you been an editor?
I've been editing off and on since January 2003.
- Are you an admin?
No. I was nominated once but I turned down the nomination. It makes you too jaded over time.
- Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?
The experiment has run its course, with results far beyond what I could have anticipated. I won't be doing it again.
A. Nony Mouse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1. Is your first name Jason? --No
2. Is your last name Boothy? --No
3. Does the end of your username contain 443? --No.
A. Nony Mouse
On 8/17/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Is your first name Jason, or your last name Boothy, or the end of your username ending with 443, by any chance?
On 8/17/05, A. Nony Mouse mousyme@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
- How long have you been an editor?
I've been editing off and on since January 2003.
- Are you an admin?
No. I was nominated once but I turned down the nomination. It makes you too jaded over time.
- Do you promise never to do anything so completely stupid ever again?
The experiment has run its course, with results far beyond what I could have anticipated. I won't be doing it again.
A. Nony Mouse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- signature _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l