Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
The wiki-community is apparantly working on it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident
TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how they go about solving their issues here.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and creepier.
---o0o---
@ Marq FJA
Eddie tends to be a little abrupt in his explanations.
The gist of it is that rape (much like sex and other similar topics) have become difficult to moderate across such a huge wiki.
Banning rape is probably the way to go, at least given the current situation and as a temporary solution, but the only real way to deal with the underlying problem is to implement better rules, enlarge the mod team, and have stricter moderation.
There are unfortunately very creepy users around the wiki, but give it half a year or more of harsher-than-usual moderation, and the wiki will become easier to handle in that aspect.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13337475620A51675000&pag...
---o0o---
These are generic problems, and Wikimedia is not free of them.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
been forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
The wiki-community is apparantly working on it:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident
TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how they go about solving their issues here.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 26 June 2012 20:30, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and creepier.
Its more complicated than that. Apart from anything else TVTropes have been drifting in the direction of being less lively and more straitlaced for some time. Clearing out the adult stuff is just part of the ongoing pattern.
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers and focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of madness.
-- Coren / Marc
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers and focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of madness.
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!" bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
been
forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers
and
focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of
madness.
-- Coren / Marc
Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!" bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between Wikipedia and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not make comparisons between the two apples to apples.
~Nathan
On 26/06/2012 3:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between Wikipedia and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not make comparisons between the two apples to apples.
No, but that's besides the point. The point is simple: if you rely on advertisers to survive, they get a hammer to use against you if you deviate from their message -- whathever that message might be.
-- Coren / Marc
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!" bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that.
That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of neutrality aside":
---o0o---
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.
...
Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict copyright enforcement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-ex...
---o0o---
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the pages down, are Google.
That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that.
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka "do what you want", vs "do unto others"; etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?))
It might be useful to try to correct newspapers if they state we set aside our neutrality. It was precisely our neutrality that was at stake!
Of course if Jimmy wants to do other political things, he should be a bit careful to either explain to everyone why it's necessary for the foundation and/or explain that he's doing it independently and his views do not nescessarily reflect the views of the board, etc etc. I hope he's doing that consistently. Are you saying that maybe he hasn't?
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the pages down, are Google. That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.
Hmmm. I think WMF talks with different departments at Google than TV Tropes does. It might be useful to enquire?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Kim Bruning wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that.
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka "do what you want", vs "do unto others"; etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?))
Libertarianism.
Also, the SOPA strike wasn't necessary; it was disruptive and foolish.
MZMcBride
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?
On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningkim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?
I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media coverage (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage). To me, at least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was stoked by that media coverage.
So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference.
-- Coren / Marc
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningkim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?
I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media coverage (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage). To me, at least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was stoked by that media coverage.
So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference.
As I recall SOPA was already dead in the water before the blackout occurred. Am I wrong about this?
The law was quite clearly flawed, even beyond what I think the current US congress is capable of passing (at least, without some direct tie to terrorism).
Interestingly, one of the best arguments against SOPA will be if Jimmy Wales loses the argument about his newest cause. If websites like TVShack.net can be shut down without relying on SOPA-like language, then this would be preferred, since 1) current law is much less likely to hit legitimate sites like Google and Wikipedia; and 2) Extradition under SOPA is much less likely to meet the dual criminality standard.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!" bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not the point ...) just underscore that.
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
Similarly, Jimbo is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants on behalf of whoever the hell he wants, just like any of us would be. Being associated with Wikimedia doesn't mean he must personally remain neutral on things, that's only required of him when he edits.
That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of neutrality aside":
---o0o---
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.
NPOV does not and has never stated "Wikipedia contributors should be neutral on everything at all times, whether on or off wiki." It prohibits editors from editorializing in articles, but it's new to me that it prohibits them from editing in the editorial section of the newspaper. Jimmy has every right to contribute his opinion to a political debate in an appropriate forum, and that's an appropriate forum.
Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict copyright enforcement.
Poor journalism once again. NPOV never states that WMF must remain neutral, or as above, the fundraising banners would've violated that long ago, so nothing needed to be "set aside". It says -articles- must remain neutral. Articles, not something else.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-ex...
---o0o---
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the pages down, are Google.
That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.
True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.
It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again, Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers, or an ad provider.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
the
pages down, are Google.
That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
Wikimedia.
True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.
Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something, and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it, they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors. And if they agreed to whatever it is, then the press would just happen to report a few weeks later that Brin has donated half a million to Wikipedia. And if WMF refused whatever Google wanted, then there simply wouldn't be an announcement of a Google donation to that amount at the next fundraiser.
No one in the press would "pillory" Google for not donating half a million that year. After all, no one is obliged to donate to Wikimedia, including Google.
It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again, Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers, or an ad provider.
Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
Oops, that slashdot report is from November 2010, and refers to the last time Google put TV Tropes under pressure. My apologies. It doesn't look like that 2010 slashdot story ever became mainstream news.
On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something, and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it, they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors.
You've been hanging out on wikipedia critics forums too much. Like most of them you don't appear to realise to what extent wikipedians tend to be bloody minded individualists. Cutting a deal with "WMF luminaries" or any other cabal you care to propose simply isn't a viable approach.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted
something,
and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it, they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors.
You've been hanging out on wikipedia critics forums too much.
Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.)
Like most of them you don't appear to realise to what extent wikipedians tend to be bloody minded individualists. Cutting a deal with "WMF luminaries" or any other cabal you care to propose simply isn't a viable approach.
I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with. I was struck by the following four-month timeline the other day:
---o0o---
October 4 to October 6, 2011: Italian Wikipedia blackout, hailed as successful in preventing Italian legislation.
November 18, 2011: Media announce that Google's Sergey Brin is donating half a million dollars to Wikipedia.
December 10, 2011: Jimmy first raises the topic of an anti-SOPA Wikipedia blackout on Wikipedia.
January 16, 2012: English Wikipedia is blacked out for a day, in an action hailed as successful in preventing US legislation.
---o0o---
Frappant, n'est-ce pas? :)
The community vote on the blackout was fairly rushed, and unlike most other important community votes was open to IPs and single-purpose accounts. They came to vote in large numbers, and editors marking non-regulars' votes in the usual way were told to stop.
And it's not as though there wasn't any contact between Jimmy and Brin in the months before the blackout; their names, along with others, appear on a joint Open Letter to the US government, opposing SOPA, that appeared in mid-December.
So, seen from one perspective, all the value that volunteers had created in the English Wikipedia over a decade was leveraged to support one view on copyrights, which happened to coincide with Google's business interests. And Google happened to donate half a million to Wikipedia just around that time.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with. I was struck by the following four-month timeline the other day:
---o0o---
October 4 to October 6, 2011: Italian Wikipedia blackout, hailed as successful in preventing Italian legislation.
November 18, 2011: Media announce that Google's Sergey Brin is donating half a million dollars to Wikipedia.
December 10, 2011: Jimmy first raises the topic of an anti-SOPA Wikipedia blackout on Wikipedia.
January 16, 2012: English Wikipedia is blacked out for a day, in an action hailed as successful in preventing US legislation.
So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2 Million received from Google in 2010.
Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to time, and use the platform they have.
Your timeline seems clouded with conspiracy theories. Maybe geni is right, and you have been hanging around the critics forum too much. I fail to see the mass conspiracy being alluded to here.
As far as funding goes, I have been around WMF funding discussion more than a lot of people. The last fundraiser was close to 30 Million USD, majority of which was accumulated through small donations. Large grants aren't something that's all that new, WMF has been receiving them for a few years now, 2012, wasn't particularly that eventful in terms of large grants [1]. I fail to see your point about the "luminaries" being bought off. As a non-profit, they have to legally declare large grants and mention the sources of their revenue. I absolutely fail to understand why Jimmy or anyone would jeopardize their standing now, raising money for an organization that really has no trouble raising it at this point.
Regards Theo
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2 Million received from Google in 2010.
I know Google gave 2 million in 2010, though I am unsure whether that makes Google influence less or more likely.
To recap, posters here said that what happened to TV Tropes – i.e. Google influencing their content decisions – couldn't happen to Wikipedia. That seems rather blue-eyed.
Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to time, and use the platform they have.
I'm sure Jimmy would not have been a friend of SOPA, regardless of what Google thought. But I was truly surprised to see Wikipedia jettison its "holy of holies" – NPOV – in a poll inviting participation from IPs and SPAs, and becoming a political actor. Whether the money greased the wheels or not, it was the sell-out of a principle many had signed up for.
Scott put it rather well:
On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.)
The difference being that I've been following Wikipedia criticism for much longer to the point where I can just view it as a rather repetitive soap opera.
I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with.
The problem with your theory is that firstly it assumes a level of control that those people don't have and secondly that you are forgetting that Google is a PLC.
So, seen from one perspective, all the value that volunteers had created in the English Wikipedia over a decade was leveraged to support one view on copyrights, which happened to coincide with Google's business interests. And Google happened to donate half a million to Wikipedia just around that time.
That would be the conspiracy theorist perspective yes.
On 27 June 2012 05:59, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they have had personal contact with.
The problem with your theory is that firstly it assumes a level of control that those people don't have and secondly that you are forgetting that Google is a PLC.
It's already been established that Wikimedia conspires directly with Rupert Murdoch's news organisation:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061602.html
- so in comparison, Andreas' claims are *relatively* sane.
- d.
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?fro... - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms.
With that said, it does make a great case for why Wikimedia should remain independent: we have enough to do to ensure the quality of our project without also worrying about whether we'll irritate Google.
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfield@gmail.com wrote:
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?fro...
- it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms.
This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google.
- d.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfield@gmail.com wrote:
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?fro...
- it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms.
This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google.
Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted?
On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield davidrichfield@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted?
Coupla days. But it turns out TVtropes is big enough that the Internet now notices when Google starts getting into corporate censorship. Also, the Tropers were more than a little annoyed at the response of the site's founder and proprietor.
The site is CC by-sa, but I don't think there are downloadable dumps or anything.
- d.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfield@gmail.com wrote:
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?fro...
- it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms.
This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google.
That's odd. As far as I can see, they all have ads on them.
See e.g. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsNotRapeIfYouEnjoyedIt http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldManMarryingAChild etc.
I note they all have a request, in bold: "No Real Life Examples, Please!". That seems to be new.
* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google.
That's odd. As far as I can see, they all have ads on them.
(There are ad networks besides Google's.)
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
And I still don't understand where all those IPs and single-purpose accounts voting for the blackout came from, or why administrators were directed to let their votes stand, when we regularly exclude such votes from far less important community discussions.
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
"Neutrality" is an "article" concept, not a "project" concept and the protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very obvious. If the "project" was "neutral", in the sense the concept is defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net wrote:
- Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
"Neutrality" is an "article" concept, not a "project" concept and the protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very obvious. If the "project" was "neutral", in the sense the concept is defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others.
I disagree - I think it is a content concept. Content being what people looking for encyclopedic content will find; just as people have often argued against advertising on the grounds that it becomes non-neutral content that questions the impartiality of the encyclopedia, the same is even more obviously true if all articles are replaced with a political banner. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance for people who believe both in neutrality and in protesting SOPA/PIPA, which understandably leads to tortured arguments like "neutrality is an article concept" and not a content concept... but such arguments are plainly not true. Anyway, this is most definitely a sidetrack from the topic of this thread.
On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons.
Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-blackout&action=history
-- Tim Starling
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff.
Point of clarification:
Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia community, in the form of the RFC that was run.
Staff developed it because they could be quickly tasked to it; had the RFC gone the other way, we wouldn't have intervened.
PB
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org philippe@wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship highlighted for all too see. I've always supported the model of yearly donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
Wow! Indeed! Someone somewhere bowed for something to advertizers!!!!! Of course, if we would have had advertizing, we would also have bowed for them after they of course would have had similar demands. Is Wikipedia also going to remove rape articles if people are saying they will not donate if we do not? No way. Why can we tell that to donators and not to advertizers?
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made explosive tropes are not affected.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:41:04PM +0100, geni wrote:
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made explosive tropes are not affected.
TvTropes and en.wp have different foci, so that should not surprise anyone. (else there wouldn't need to be 2 different wikis)
That said, a number of the expunged topics (eg. movies, books, etc) do appear to overlap with articles on en.wp, where they are discussed in our typical dry manner.
(This from a small sample, and they're still working at it, so ymmv)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Sear... mike
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
sincerely, Kim Bruning
--
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Sear... mike
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
sincerely, Kim Bruning
--
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve TVTropes.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +0000, Mike Dupont wrote:
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Sear... mike
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
sincerely, ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
--
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on archive org, I dont want to host them, mike
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve TVTropes.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +0000, Mike Dupont wrote:
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples personal lives. I dont want to deal with stuff like that, mike
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia? http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Sear... mike
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It somehow feels soviet. :-/
sincerely, ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
--
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
That's the nice thing about the Internet: What Wikipedia doesn't want, some people will host, and what they don't want, some other people will host. Everyone has standards; the standards just differ from project to project.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on archive org, I dont want to host them, mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org