[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 17 00:56:46 UTC 2011

Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results.

I posted some more Commons search terms where this happens on Meta; they include 

Black, Caucasian, Asian; 

Male, Female, Teenage, Woman, Man; 


Drawing, Drawing style; 

Barbie, Doll; 

Demonstration, Slideshow; 

Drinking, Custard, Tan; 

Hand, Forefinger, Backhand, Hair; 

Bell tolling, Shower, Furniture, Crate, Scaffold; 

Galipette – French for "somersault"; this leads to a collection of 1920s pornographic films which are undoubtedly of significant historical interest, but are also pretty much as explicit as any modern representative of the genre.


>From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011, 20:31
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's
>an indication it probably shouldn't be sent.
>Dan Rosenthal
>On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???:
>> >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote:
>> >>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???<wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk>    wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
>> >>>
>> >>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
>> >>> complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
>> >>> empathy.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Trolling much eh David?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that
>> >> searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat
>> >> different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual
>> images.
>> >>
>> > I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and
>> > unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all,
>> > if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this
>> > kind of wording, or we are done.
>> >
>> Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking
>> would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad
>> your email provider added that option for you.
>> Yet another censorship hipocrite.
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list