[Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

Wed Jul 24 01:40:59 UTC 2013

Found the pic - will mail you off-list - definite NSFW!

Rui

On 24 July 2013 03:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Rui,
>
> The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
> cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
> Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if
> they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account
> termination.
>
> See "Do moderate your content" and "Don't forget the children" on this
> page:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/
>
> (To report an image, navigate to the image and click "Report abuse", near
> the bottom of the page.)
>
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such
> detailed
> > scenarios.
> >
> > What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.
> >
> > As for your comment about "Flickr does a fairly good job of showing
> nudity
> > and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it,
> and
> > ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to see it", that
> is
> > not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
> > was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
> > to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
> > problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
> > 'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
> > of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
> > any other porn site.
> >
> > And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rui,
> > >
> > > There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of
> > them:
> > >
> > > *Answer the First*
> > >
> > > This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
> > > agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made
> complaints
> > > like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will
> change,
> > > because editors like things just the way they are.
> > >
> > > The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of
> > participation:
> > > "Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the
> sun].
> > > You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say
> > who
> > > you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if
> you're
> > > smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."
> > >
> > > Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html
> > >
> > > this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes
> > to
> > > dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the
> > Foundation
> > > is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.
> > >
> > > Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort
> > of
> > > players you call out in your original post will prevent it.
> > >
> > > The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the
> people
> > > who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against
> you,
> > > even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.
> > >
> > > Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance
> > sucks,
> > > and how it affects content.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Second*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In
> the
> > > German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
> > > that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually
> > say
> > > "Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180
> > >
> > > In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
> > > automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account
> > with a
> > > funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and
> > removes
> > > transparency.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Third*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's
> own
> > > website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of
> who
> > > the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia
> > 101:
> > > find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1
> > >
> > > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr
> > >
> > > If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.
> > >
> > > *Answer the Fourth*
> > >
> > > Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
> > > showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately –
> > want
> > > to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get
> to
> > > see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following
> links
> > > are NSFW):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=massage&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=40&redirs=0&profile=images&search=pliers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male+human&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bell+tolling&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=prince+albert&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=30&redirs=0&profile=images&search=hood
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=black&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=asian&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=caucasian&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=furniture&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bench&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=driving&fulltext=Search
> > >
> > > Etc.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All
> > > >
> > > > It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing
> goes
> > > on
> > > > on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to
> > address
> > > > these issues.
> > > >
> > > > But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing
> > information
> > > > know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass
> by
> > to
> > > > add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that
> > get
> > > > reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the
> 'ownsership'
> > > > syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they
> > don't
> > > > like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they
> > 'own'
> > > > certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are
> > actually
> > > > lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).
> > > >
> > > > A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
> > > > sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I
> > added
> > > a
> > > > few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I
> > > admit
> > > > the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the
> history
> > > of
> > > > the page.
> > > >
> > > > That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
> > > > negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
> > > > 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of
> hibernation
> > 2
> > > > months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add
> > > pro-Flickr
> > > > edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page
> of
> > > > Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
> > > > practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr
> > > (there
> > > > is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there
> > is
> > > > indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work
> in
> > a
> > > > concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
> > > > suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a
> > > high-school
> > > > student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are
> > > making
> > > > rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
> > > > section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
> > > > (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a
> number
> > > of
> > > > Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
> > > > relaible source, apparently..
> > > >
> > > > This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the
> > Flickr
> > > > article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it
> and
> > > > most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of
> bad
> > > > press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
> > > > whatever hour of day or night.
> > > >
> > > > The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project
> > play
> > > > into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
> > > > Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor
> will
> > > > persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit
> elsewhere.
> > > > Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not
> use
> > > > them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up
> for
> > > > arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors
> > > involved
> > > > or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon
> as
> > > it
> > > > develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
> > > > driving away good editors.
> > > >
> > > > I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have
> > > come
> > > > across this type of behaviour.
> > > > And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
> > > spots
> > > > of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
> > > > principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In
> an
> > > age
> > > > when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the
> service
> > > of
> > > > 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rui Correia.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > _________________________
> > > > Rui Correia
> > > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > > > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> > > >
> > > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > > > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > > > _______________
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

-- 
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________