[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

Wed Mar 7 17:02:59 UTC 2012

Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
"spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

Juliana

2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com>

> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in
> the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than
> other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and
> Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give
> them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
> approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
> might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
>
> By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn
> site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
> active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki
> of his own, where he says about himself,
>
> *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
> that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am
> all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
> looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy
> seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
> porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from
> capitalist fuckers."*
>
> There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
> Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex
> life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
> mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort
> for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am
> not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York
> Times readership would approve?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
>
> Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a
> nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce
> the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like
> "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite
> effect:
>
>   - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content
>   pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
>   - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
>   followed by Category:Vulva<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
>    and Category:Female
> genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
>   .
>   - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
>   times a day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> >,
>   compared to roughly 1 view a
> day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG>
>    or less than one view a
> day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> for
>   actual images of toothbrushes.
>   - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a
>   toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of
>   Category:Toothbrushes<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
>   the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> primarily
>   an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
> included in Category:Shaved
>   genitalia (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
>   which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of
> Commons,
>   and it is also part of Category:Female
> masturbation<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
>   the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
>   - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing figures
>   will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing cucumbers,
>   but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have
>   browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber
>   category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media, where
> the
>   presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.
>
> More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after
> maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
> girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
> the main page. --*JN
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think that
> maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people are
> actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more often
> than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush"
> might just get people what they're looking for more often. The "principle
> of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if our
> horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it would
> be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
> Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
>  (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4 March
> 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily page
> views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
> toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at
> Category:Shaved
> genitalia (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>
>  and Category:Female
> masturbation<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
> every
> month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless of
> how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at images of
> other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of a
> tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model
> whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax exemption
> and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy to
> see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service?
> Probably neither. --*JN
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
> * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>