Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia By Jana Winter http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-rem...
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia By Jana Winter http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-rem...
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.
Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any "graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt.
It was an enormous mistake to respond to this "news" organization as though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity.
David Levy
The moral here is that a panicked, poorly thought out and haphazardly executed response to critical news coverage is exactly the wrong response. It's failed here in every possible respect, tarnishing the Foundation, its founder, its staff and the community. A few borderline images have been deleted, but for what?
Nathan
The Fox article helpfully describes how to find those cartoon illustrations "depicting child sex acts"
Would anyone be interested in seeing how many times those pictures were viewed prior to Fox's article, and after the article came out? "Dirty hands" is an effective legal counter-claim is it not?
W.J.
On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
+1.
I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice things in the article about FOX news (maintaining NPOV, of course).
--vvv
2010/5/10 Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com:
On 05/11/2010 12:25 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
+1.
I suggest to ignore them. Or perhaps someone should write more nice things in the article about FOX news (maintaining NPOV, of course).
May I cite that any angry editor doing this might be under conflict of interest? (Albeit I think this is the most powerful counterattack available :)
Anyway, I think they should be just sued. I don't know about US law, but defamation is a criminal offense here. Also, I think their use of the label "illegal content" might be a violation of some other law, too.
PS: They talk about nude children, link in the title they say "illegal content". But, are they talking about those kind of images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism ? There are nude children there, but I see this kind of image on diaper commercials too, and some other infant products. They are being REALLY mean.
This is excellent advice from David. I could not agree more regarding Fox News; ignore them. They won't go away, but any reaction feeds their nonsense.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:25 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia By Jana Winter http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-rem...
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi,
Le lundi 10 mai 2010 13:25:29, David Gerard a écrit :
Any attempt to "filter" ourselves is not addressing the fact that the images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these vicious morons was and is counterproductive at best. Fox News is best aggressively ignored from now on and given similar cooperation to the Register.
"Filtering" ourselves would be pointless if our goal was to appease Fox [1]. However, I think most of us agree that it has not been, is not and should not be our goal. As you say very well yourself, Fox is best left ignored.
Our goal is to facilitate the dissemination of free knowledge, and to provide the best experience possible to our readers, our participants and more generally our population of users.
In this context, I think it makes sense to research the needs or our users, and investigate possible ways to improve their experience on our websites. If a significant amount of our users wish to be able to filter out some parts of our content, we should do our best to empower them to do so, as a service to them.
[1] I'm having a hard time using the oxymoron "Fox News", so I'm just using "Fox".
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-rem...
Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the errors?
-Stevertigo
Amusing, perhaps, but it would really serve no purpose other than to be vindictive and pointed (everyone know Wikimedia is smarter than Fox). Besides, it'd be a copyvio.
~A
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 19:39, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-rem...
Just throwing this out there, but would it not be productive to first copy Ms. Winter's articles to Meta, and have everyone annote all the errors?
-Stevertigo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org