[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 05:24:35 UTC 2012 

If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board
members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view:
Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and
unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response
to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"?

Andreas

2012/3/8 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose at googlemail.com>

> Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where
> I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house
> who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery
> smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with
> special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this
> people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.
>
> Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any
> of them and you must really search very intense to find this.
> I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching  and
> collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als
> "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
> thank you every day for this.
>
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com>
>
> > Juliana,
> >
> > You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
> >
> > I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just
> like
> > I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> > on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> > to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> > responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> > Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about
> adult
> > material.
> >
> > And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> > and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
> >
> > Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> > Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> > would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> > mainspace:
> >
> >
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
> >
> > So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> > problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia
> are
> > a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> > view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> > English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> > responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
> >
> > The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> > prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> > being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> > efforts:
> >
> > http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> > The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons
> and
> > English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review
> discussion
> > thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been
> jailed
> > for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> > this article:
> >
> > http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
> >
> > The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> > in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
> >
> > Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> > years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia
> Commons
> > in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors
> who
> > decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
> > to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
> > represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is
> aggressively
> > opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream.
> That
> > is a problem.
> >
> > WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations,
> from
> > the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> > content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> > embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> > the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in
> German
> > Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing
> it
> > from moving towards the mainstream of society.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostajose at googlemail.com>
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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