[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

Thu Mar 8 02:42:11 UTC 2012

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
>