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 <jayen...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < > tobias.oelga...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l