The foundation appears to be of the impression that Jimbo is merely
attempting to encourage scrutiny, and removing clear cases.
This is not true. Jimbo has speedy deleted, without discussion, historical
artworks and diagrams, often edit warring with admins to keep them deleted,
and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
problem.
Examples:
Artworks from the 19th century, by notable artists:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File…<-
Wheelwarred with three different admins to try and keep it deleted.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File…<-
Wheelwarred with two admins this time.
----
Diagrams intended to illustrate articles on sexual subjects, in wide use on
Wikipedia projects for that purpose:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File…<-
Edit warred with three admins
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File…
----
Further, when challeged on these, he said that he refused to engage in any
discussion on the deletion of artwork *until he was done deleting all of
them*
From
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&acti…
"I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will
have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography
and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time
to start.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
Wales#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 7 May 2010
(UTC)"
How are such images to be found, after's he's gone and deleted them all? Are
we really to sift through every single deletion several months later, to
find the things that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, and
which, thanks to the Commons Delinker bot, have been automatically removed
from the articles they were used in?
Out of Jimbo's deletions, at the very least a third of the deletions related
to diagrams and historical artwork in wide use on Wikipedia projects. This
despite his initial claim (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&acti…)
that he'd only be dealing with things that violated the law that
started
the controversy.
If the board are not aware, there was, about a year ago, a controversy
related to images of Muhammed, in which Muslim readers - for whom such are
horribly offensive, due to rules against depiction of the prophet - were
politely informed that we could not delete material simply because it
offended someone, as Wikipedia sought to show all of the world's knowledge.
Jimbo's actions make that consensus deeply problematic.
There is a petition for Wales' founder flag to be removed, which has gained
widespread support since his actions. (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag )
-A. C.
One thing which I would have wished the Board's statement to address is the need for some sort of content rating and filtering system that will enable parents, schools and libraries to screen out content unsuitable for minors.
Anyone giving minors access to Commons presently also gives them ready access to collections of pornographic media, via categories such as
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BDSM
(and its various subcategories).
I am concerned about this, because it reflects poorly on the project. It is also against the law in parts of the world. In Germany, for example,
"The spreading of pornographic content and other harmful media via the internet is a criminal offence under German jurisdiction. A pornographic content on the internet is legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the object (AVS = Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System)."
From: http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english.html
As far as I am concerned, the community consensus model has failed us here, resulting in immature decision-making.
The same thing goes for Wikipedia articles that contain pornographic material. We should have content rating categories, so schools and libraries can make Wikipedia accessible to minors without fearing that they will
* lose their E-Rate funding (per the Children's Internet Protection Act, http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html -- "Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy that includes technology protection measures. The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors)"), or
* will be found to have infringed laws if a parent, say, complains to a teacher about their child having stumbled upon our hardcore pornography on a school computer.
Doing nothing to address concerns that are widespread in society is risky and foolhardy. There is also the issue of underage admins being asked to administer hardcore pornographic content, making deletion decisions etc. It doesn't look good and will come to bite us sooner or later, if it is not addressed.
Andreas (Jayen466)
On 7 May 2010 21:30, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net> wrote:
> Distributing this more widely, since apparently the forwarding from
> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
> release the following statement:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation projects aim to bring the sum of human
> knowledge to every person on the planet. To that end, our projects
> contain a vast amount of material. Currently, there are more than six
> million images and 15 million articles on the Wikimedia sites, with new
> material continually being added.
>
> The vast majority of that material is entirely uncontroversial, but the
> projects do contain material that may be inappropriate or offensive to
> some audiences, such as children or people with religious or cultural
> sensitivities. That is consistent with Wikimedia's goal to provide the
> sum of all human knowledge. We do immediately remove material that is
> illegal under U.S. law, but we do not remove material purely on the
> grounds that it may offend.
>
> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational
> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has
> no educational or informational value. In saying this, we don't intend
> to create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that
> already exists. We encourage Wikimedia editors to scrutinize potentially
> offensive materials with the goal of assessing their educational or
> informational value, and to remove them from the projects if there is no
> such value.
>
> --Michael Snow
Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore
pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies.
I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do
encourage people to continue deleting the most extreme stuff.
But as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) there is not
nearly the time pressure that there was. I'm shifting into a slower mode.
We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.
Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible
policy discussion.
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
The correct storyline is that Mr. Wales caved to the slightest bit of
media pressure and engaged in full-out censorship of artworks and
diagrams, showing that anyone who wants to get something removed from
Wikipedia just has to threaten Mr. Wales.
This was a disgraceful action, made all the more disgraceful by you
not being honest as to the reason for your actions up until now. You
kept the media pressure secret from the community, and claimed it was
a legal issue.
Disgraceful!
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 17:19:58 +0400
> From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where things stand now
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin0AvroxMvCUAOotprnJxkGLFjb2DArvCeKMXLT(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
>> and doing nothing about it.
>
> Do you understand that not all images you deleted were hardcore pornography?
> What was the reason of wheel warring on them?
>
> --vvv
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 74, Issue 28
> ********************************************
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You clearly missed the point do you?
Nobody has the power to declare policy at commons but the community and
the board. You are neither. You have behaved like a vandal, and every
other user would have been blocked ad infinitum. This is not about porn,
this about you abusing your status in the most evil way anyone could
have imagined. If you had followed the correct procedure, instead of
going on a deletion spree, everything would have been settled and most
images would have been deleted anyway.
This is unacceptible behaviour and is inexcusable. Delete first and
discuss later is not the way commons works and it has never worked that
way. You say you are proud? Well, you can be proud. You have destroyed
all confidence people had in you, and frankly, you don't deserve any better.
If you think stepping toes is the right way to do it, perhaps you should
state instead of "an encyclopaedia everyone can edit" "a site that is
run in accordance with the whims and fancies of the former owner".
A disgruntled former Commons admin.
- -----------------
Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore
pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies.
I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do
encourage people to continue deleting the most extreme stuff.
But as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) there is not
nearly the time pressure that there was. I'm shifting into a slower mode.
We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.
Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible
policy discussion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJL5WeaAAoJEPw1DReD38njrbMP/RBP+oF7cHc26IVRaIaBH3Gh
I9rPvKa4jjCROEmXTvVTNfVVaqrk/2F4RXuJxw3EDUWEGcwUDYz7nmT5RaXBF3iN
UwMfU8i59D8D0Dq6GqEYUtKA505hpOe9RJ1AFgWPXAtzD2A4uihOOo35o6TeZOJf
7zQ9Y6qD2glgK239kUcUrGZA9k49S0vLnVKUe4AseoaqXrhzjYzVcEav+36mjP/D
IQRFzsV3wrLmnGrsuy0NF/4Ku+jKi0GDpPf+I72BdNzLLDi7baSLdJGGir9MaqmI
Elq13KTwl4vIN1g3MKZrjsJD1VGpJHzFRQWFD4CxmqPitAZK03nE9ZVkg7y3YQSD
G3gchKfFtRUPUPNiWfnCaRVFYblEGiw5NLWcFZvL8dScd6aDXP2olD0O3U1d9Wl6
LIGoPlOlUB1WWsGLNxIaKOn28ZayAWp8kpDQI6yCAMEoDCt0Q8h86azzF1KPvAKz
MW8ueEbSXDDyu7JQGlsXnFnnSVJYep0wTArSAmHDNUsGfExvvsMBN+fvrkwOkm6i
Cm2CHXXl4rOlXE0P7XGJ57NXTSGNRM/O9FmN6LcARt3PhOY6djdV6xDjCpSDx223
vvcp5/FYJPmrOEXZViJBJuJvsyaqSiXIsO9rK4o4SN3PgxmSW1eX5icOVdOgVCNF
ZBhl8StacA8QuZoPWZBx
=V1NQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I, of course, agree that the Félicien Rops image is offensive, and we
have no reason to needlessly offend by putting it in articles where
less-offensive images are equally encyclopedic. However, it's also by
a notable artist, and, as such, can be used to illustrate his work,
the subjects you mention, and other similar cases and thus shouldn't
be permanently deleted. without discussion, as part of an effort to
make Commons entirely child friendly which has little support outside
of Jimbo himself.
The point is not whether images should or shouldn't be used to
illustrate specific articles, the point is that Wales has decided, on
his own, that all images that are at all pornographic should be
deleted, and has gone about deleting images by notable artists, and
when challenged, stonewalled completely by saying that no discussion
of his actions would be heard until he had finished his disruption,
and all the images were already gone.
I'm not one of Wikipeda's porn editors. I didn't know these images
existed in advance. But I worried that the new policy would be used to
censor art, and, it turns out, was completely and totally correct.
-Adam.
>Well, do you need a picture to explain a dildo? File:Franz von Bayros
>016.jpg is more or less art, but File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png
>which is used on three Wikipedias to illustrate the use of a dildo has
>some real problems with being offensive to Catholics (Of course Japanese
>or Chinese Catholics don't matter, but they do). Much better to use a
>photo of the woman using a dildo or at least an eye-witness report
>published in a reliable source. The image could, of course, be used
>appropriately to illustrate an article on caricatures or something about
>anti-catholicism.
>Fred Bauder
Really, Mr. Wales? Let's review what you actually wrote.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&acti…
"I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will
have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography
and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time
to start.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
Wales#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 7 May 2010
(UTC)"
"For the duration of the cleanup project", "at a later day", etc.
And that is not your only statement in that line.
"<jwales> I think that'll be a great one to discuss re-introducing
after we determine whether or not Commons should host pornographic
files at all" - IRC message on the Bavros art.
I'm sure one could sift through and find many other examples of you
insisting that we cannot discuss keping erotic artworks until after
you're done deleting all of them.
>On 5/8/10 12:12 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
>> and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
>> after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
>> problem.
>
>To the contrary, I have been very active in discussions both on the
>wiki, in email, and in irc. Pretending that I'm not a reasonable person
>open to discussion and debate is not going to be very persuasive to
>anyone who knows me. :-)
>
>--Jimbo
Zazo:
I see you have ignored all the content of my messages, focusing on a single
pair of words, in which I express my frustration at Jimbo, who had, just
previously, told me on IRC that artworks would not be spared, that he
refused to limit such deletions, and that any such opinions to the contrary
would not be heard until after all deletions had taken place, and reaffirmed
that he refused point blank to even consider other positions but that
extreme one.
You are engaging in nothing but a distraction tactic: The users are upset!
Therefore, we can ignore them, because they're just upset. No need to
consider their points!
Updated April 27, 2010
Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI
"The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child
pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's
imploring the FBI to investigate."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger…
Erik Möller is particularly unfair.
Fred Bauder
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
No, it won't. People have been saying that for years and the fact
remains that a screen full of a text with a few relevant images is a
much better way to convey information than VR.
----
I look at comments like this as somebody who is very closed minded and not willing to see more methods of instruction. A screen full of text certainly is a useful way to convey certain kinds of factual information, and I certainly see the analogy of a paper encyclopedia to be a useful way to compile and organize general knowledge about this universe we live in, but it isn't the only way and certainly isn't the "best" way to learn about all knowledge.
I certainly could see some application for the use of virtual reality in the context of Wikiversity or some other guided tour of a virtual environment, or for alternative ways to explore content. It does require a different way of looking at that information, and the tools needed to organize information that is fitting for that environment are certainly a bit different than the tools needed for organizing a web page.
As for why projects like VRML failed to take off in a meaningful way, that is certainly something worthy debating. From my viewpoint, one of the problems facing VRML was the very non-intuitive interfaces and incredibly steep initial learning curves to being able to get even a simple object like a cube or a sphere created in the first place. As somebody who still likes to write HTML using a simple text editor, HTML is by comparison very simple to at least get *something* put down and displayed with a typical web server... in fact it doesn't even need a web server in order to experiment with creating basic web pages.
At the very least, tools similar to a wiki where somebody new to even the concept of editing on-line content at this moment in time really don't exist. As far as what those tools could be and how you might take the philosophy of wiki editing into an on-line virtual reality environment.... that is something I would love to explore in depth. I'm being serious here and I think this is an awesome idea but it certainly would take some work.
The real gift here that is incredibly beneficial to the whole thing is that some significant content is available for the first time. For those that have forgotten, a rather substantial portion of Wikipedia was seeded with free content from a variety of sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA World Factbook, and a variety of free image libraries that existed before the Wikimedia Commons came into existence. It doesn't matter that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects have exceeded in nearly all aspects these original seed sources and have in turn become seeds to other projects, the point is that those organizing Wikipedia in the first place were able to leverage some tools from a variety of sources and applied a rather interesting democratic principle for organizing information.
I am arguing here that a similar opportunity has now presented itself to perhaps extend the basic ideas and philosophies of wiki editing to a very new environment that until now has been very closed and proprietary. There have been other previous attempts to get a free software equivalent MMORPG type environment going before, but frankly they have been kludgy messes of software that has been lacking content and developers, and has never really been able to get a good critical mass of development put together to get it to work. That is the significance of this announcement, as perhaps those who might get involved here with this media could make a step forward into a new direction that hasn't been tried before.
As far as Wikimedia's involvement with this effort.... that certainly can be debated. There are some who contribute to this list that even think the sister projects are an utter failure and should all be spun off to separate charities or foundations other than the WMF. I for one think this is a unique opportunity to do something very different if there would be some individuals who might want to think a bit outside of the normal box of throwing text onto a web page.
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.netzero.net/freeemail?refcd=NZTAGOUT1FREM0210
