Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results.
I posted some more Commons search terms where this happens on Meta; they include Black, Caucasian, Asian; Male, Female, Teenage, Woman, Man; Vegetables; Drawing, Drawing style; Barbie, Doll; Demonstration, Slideshow; Drinking, Custard, Tan; Hand, Forefinger, Backhand, Hair; Bell tolling, Shower, Furniture, Crate, Scaffold; Galipette – French for "somersault"; this leads to a collection of 1920s pornographic films which are undoubtedly of significant historical interest, but are also pretty much as explicit as any modern representative of the genre. Andreas >________________________________ >From: Dan Rosenthal <[email protected]> >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011, 20:31 >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content > >If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's >an indication it probably shouldn't be sent. > > >Dan Rosenthal > > >On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: >> > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: >> >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: >> >>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for >> >>> >> >>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was >> >>> complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in >> >>> empathy. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Trolling much eh David? >> >> >> >> >> >> But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that >> >> searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat >> >> different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual >> images. >> >> >> > I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and >> > unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, >> > if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this >> > kind of wording, or we are done. >> > >> >> >> Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking >> would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad >> your email provider added that option for you. >> >> Yet another censorship hipocrite. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >[email protected] >Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
