[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 05.03.2012 19:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my
> sympathy.
>
> However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a
> Multimedia search for "male human" in Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human
>
> Or try just "human":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human
>
> Is this the Wikimedia view of what humanity is about?
>
> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
> who say they will fork if anything changes.
>
> Let them.
>
> Andreas
>
Sometimes your a little bit to persistent. I know that this results are 
giving a wrong image, but you brought them up in at least 20 discussions 
until now. But this won't solve anything. How about some active work to 
come up with possible solutions? No, I don't mean solutions that would 
perfectly fit your own demands. It is way more productive to search for 
solutions that the opposition could agree with, while also achieving the 
own goals at the same time.

You saw my search proposal and you where in favour of it. But it wasn't 
only you who could agree with this proposal. The opposition would be 
happy with it as well. That is the way to go. But to find such solutions 
you will need to respect other opinions as well.

Back to your "human" examples, I have simple explanation. This images, 
how controversial they are, get good treatment by the community. Yes 
even a deletion request is good treatment in this case. There are much 
more people involved with this files then with many other files. This 
leads to very direct descriptions, better categorization and so on. Now 
we must not wonder that the search is so happy to represent the current 
results. Such actions make them even more popular and give them a high 
rank inside the results.

You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related 
categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that 
the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a 
great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. 
Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One 
thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. 
Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that 
so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a 
very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an 
argument that we are a porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as 
using this as an argument.

nya~