Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
Hi all, I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage for the second time; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29 Hard to tell at this early stage how it's going to go, but I find the general level of quality of comment at the poll to be a little wanting in some ways (oh well). I hope Phoebe doesn't mind me copying her in on this email, but I'd also like to follow up an enquiry about the working group she mentioned last month - it's here; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoebe#G.27day_Phoebe cheers, Peter, PM. On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:46 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The controversial content study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was completed a few weeks ago. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study? Dear Andreas, and all, I'm sorry we've been s slow to answer this -- it's a busy time. We have been planning to post an update about the current status of the controversial content discussion anyway, so thank you for asking the question. Here is what happened at the last board meeting regarding controversial content, and our planned next steps. ==Background== At the last in-person Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting in October, Robert and Dory Harris presented the study and its 11 recommendations to the Board. The Board expressed appreciation for the thorough report and thanked them warmly for their work and for soliciting community input throughout the process. Three hours of the meeting agenda was devoted to this topic, and there was a lot of discussion, with every board member expressing their reactions before moving to open discussion. For those who don't know what the recommendations are, the 11 recommendations made are listed in Part II of the study. The recommendations fall into three types: recommendations involving statements of principle (including the background principles), recommendations requiring technical and Foundation support as well as community support (such as those to code image show/hide functions), and recommendations requiring community action (such as those to review content). In detail, Robert and Dory recommended that no changes be made to the manner in which text-based “controversial” content is handled in the Wikimedia projects, because the definitions and procedures currently in place to deal with this content are working. They also made a number of recommendations for action that falls within the bailiwick of the Wikimedia community, including recommending that Wikimedia consider development of a Wikijunior project and that Commons admins consider how to improve implementation of some policies and how they are applied. And they recommended that the Wikimedia Foundation staff begin developing a new feature to allow Wikimedia project users to opt into a system that would allow them to easily hide classes of images from their own view. In general, the Board welcomed many of these recommendations and the care taken with this report, particularly the highlighting of some of the fundamental unresolved questions about Commons mission, scope, and growth rate. ==Next steps== Here are the next steps the Board is taking: The Board did not pass a resolution on controversial content or take other action on the suggested recommendations at this meeting. However, the Board has formed a working group around controversial content, led by Board members Jan-Bart (as group Chair), Phoebe and Kat, to work with Robert and Dory to identify next steps. The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting, working with the community and finally making a report to the full Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps, including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations, which recommendations (if any) there is consensus to move forward on and noting what would be required to put them into practice. Right now the working group is getting Board member feedback to see what Board consensus exists around the resolutions, and after finishing this process will probably move on to analysis. We realize that some of the recommendations are much more controversial than others, and some are much more technically difficult than others. ==How to help== We recognize that this issue has been discussed to death in many forums over a long time. And the Board has been reading those discussions :) However, we
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3
There's probably an important and interesting 'meta' point to make about whether or not lists such as this one actually have utility in forwarding discussion and resolution,or whether we prefer to sort of talk to ourselves, then let things slide... but I'm going for the later... I really just wanted to follow up the issue of a systemic approach to permanent deletion of material which may be illegal on WMF servers - stewards and oversighters on commons can still access an image of a 16 year old girl masturbating - 9 months after I first notified this list my initial post - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056658.html image of 16 year old girl masturbating - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 Now I would ask Mike if that's legal or not, but I can't seem to get hold of him - I've previously notified board members on meta with no response, and hope it's now appropriate to copy Sue on this to ensure all are at least aware of the lack of action here cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like -- * any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons * there are no identifiable people in the image * etc. It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community. Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content Andreas Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment: Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value, should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance. (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be a somewhat curated repository, after all. The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised. (cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile) ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3
Hi Robert / all, I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but related to the Controversial Content study; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) - and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such material rear its ugly head at some point in the future. Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available to 'oversighters' here; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-) best, Peter, PM. ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16 year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a basic copyvio of online material. We can't know. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is now up on its own Meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to all for allowing us to enter your house as a guest; we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3
failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image I would think it best to remove permanently; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 cheers, Peter, PM. On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Robert / all, I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but related to the Controversial Content study; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) - and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such material rear its ugly head at some point in the future. Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available to 'oversighters' here; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-) best, Peter, PM. ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16 year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a basic copyvio of online material. We can't know. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is now up on its own Meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to all for allowing us to enter your house as a guest; we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Mini update on sexual content discussions
G'day all, I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.) Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related questions is gently dying down - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt the 'sexual content' policy proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3F What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition retrospectively, and maybe not at all - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_deletions_by_noconsent_template I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content, and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_contentoldid=42301328#consent The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming poll cheers, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
G'day Robert :-) I write as a wiki user who's been advocating for change in the area of sexual content on wmf projects for a few years now, and personally I'm very happy at the direction the foundation has taken in commissioning a third party (that'd be you) to investigate and report etc. on this issue. I believe I'm generally considered to hold quite strong views in this area, but what I would support (and will discuss throughout this process :-) is a system which discourages wmf volunteers who are minors from accessing or maintaining sexually explicit material, some sort of age verification system (a la flickr) for public viewers, and that the foundation goes above what it considers to be its minimal legal requirements for ensuring sexually explicit material has been uploaded with the consent of the participants, and only depicts those of legal age. I checked out what I think is your website here; http://www.rhresources.com/- and although your news and blog seem a little over a year old, my main concern is that you appear to have a series of little grey men jumping out of your head ;-) Welcome aboard the unique ride that is wmf wikis, and I look forward to following your work in this area cheers, Peter, PM. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at these complex and significant issues. Robert Harris ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
yeah - oops! Aplogies to both Robert Harris' - fwiw, RH has updated here; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robertmharris and here's a CBC info blurb for the curious... http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/programs.html?I_HEAR_MUSIC cheers, Peter, PM. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: snip I think you have the wrong Robert Harris, PM. Robert L instead of Robert M. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's authority (on global bans)
sometimes things with broad community support don't really bear examination ;-) http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Gregory Kohs wrote: Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a global ban on a user? Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad community support. -- Tim Starling ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-) It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the communities, might be able to do - lemme give it a shot :-) There's obviously an ongoing issue of some sort for Andrew, as a 'dev' to write above 'the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable' - could you (or Andrew) confirm that the appropriate authorities were contacted in the case of child pornography being uploaded - and would we agree that this is something the foundation can help facilitate as oppose to responsibility lying with the communities? while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? - In the context of andrew requesting discussion with counsel as oppose to each other, it might be good to clear that up? The bottom line is that I think the foundation can provide leadership to the communities, as well as specific software adjustments, perhaps including things like 'click here to say you're 18', or some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' - what I hope I'm showing by highlighting the volume and nature of much media on wmf projects is the fact that for a variety of reasons guidance and leadership from the foundation would be a good thing :-) (please note that I'm not asking for hundreds of images or articles to be deleted, nor am I claiming the wmf is nasty, evil and depraved, nor that looking at folking putting bits and bobs into each other (and themselves!) is necessary a bad thing - just that discussion of regulation is a good idea!) Perhaps worthy of note also is the nature of project usage, as another commons user put it semi-rhetorically; 'are we becoming a systematic pornography source?' ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pumpdiff=prevoldid=33968683) These stat.s; http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ seem to say 'yes' - there's a clear use of commons as porn source in my view, and I don't think commons as 'the best porn you can get at school, or in the library' is a good look for wmf :-) - mileage may vary of course, but thems my thoughts. Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) best, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away. - d. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
heh! indeed - I don't think anyone would expect you to disclose everything on this list! That would be rather silly ;-) I'm also certain of both your expertise and connections in regard to law enforcement, DOJs and whatnot - I certainly haven't meant to imply that your expertise in this regard is anything other than an assett for the wmf! I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=28221view=findpostp=216072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! best, Peter, PM. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
I'm more raising the issue that what could be child pornography remains available to wmf volunteers with 'oversight' op.s on commons - I don't think the foundation should facilitate that, and I hope a decent enough system can be quickly implemented (it's also quite possible that there is in fact a system in place, but it's unknown to me!) for the depressingly inevitable 'next time' I'd probably go a step further and say that sub-optimal / insufficient systems for dealing with predictable problems indicate a general lack of responsible governance in this area (ie. I'm sadly not surprised that this issue occurs in this way) - but mileage inevitably varies... I'm hopeful of hearing of a strong resolution to this one imminently. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rswrote: Дана Sunday 17 January 2010 22:13:28 private musings написа: Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic eboard/Incidentsoldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastu rbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=28221view=findpostp=216 072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! This is an interesting case, but I don't see what it has to do with policies on explicit images on WMF projects. Even if the policies would be changed to be the strictest possible (for example, no explicit images allowed at all), the exact same thing could happen. ___ 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
[Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? best, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] open wikis for chapters....?
G'day all, over on the wikimedia au mailing list, we've been having a discussion about whether or not our 'official wiki' should be able to be edited by more than just the current financial members (I think we've got around 30 - 50 members at the mo) ( see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2009-December/002745.htmlfor the thread, and it sort of gets just a little bit heated) I thought I'd flick this list a note because the tensions between the foundation's aims and this more pragmatic decision have been discussed. What I'd like to ask this list's members is whether or not you agree that open editing is a good thing, and as many pages as possible on a chapter's wiki should be open to as many folk as possible? Obviously there are important factors to keep in mind in making these decisions, but I feel it would be useful for others not quite so connected to 'WMAU', but with a close connection to WMF in general, if they have a moment, to review our thread, and offer feedback and ideas as to whether we're doing it right, or (as I feel) we really should open up the wiki a bit more :-) best, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] volunteering outreach
G'day all :-) I mentioned in a previous post ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056092.html) that I was personally interested in getting some external advice from Volunteering Australia ( http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) about good practice, and learning a bit more about how other large volunteer organisations manage things - I'm going to be popping in to Volunteering Australia in the next couple of weeks or so to have a meet and greet sort of chat - I've been very clear that I'm just a volunteer who enjoys contributing to wikimedia projects, and I hope they may be able to offer some interesting ideas, as well as answer a few questions I've got - I've copied Jay from the foundation in on this too, as well as the australian chapter list really just to let folk know :-) Having chatted about this a little with Witty Lama following the aussie chapter AGM, I'm pleased that he's coming along too - I'll update this thread following the chat with any interesting news or ideas :-) cheers, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
Ray, you seem to me to be essentially discussing the 'users' perspective on wikipedia - whilst it's my view that the foundation, and the projects could (and should) do more to allow things like descriptive image filtering for users (I think it would drive participation in places like schools, and librairies) I'm also interested in discussing the perspective of 'participant' in the project. I think there are important duty of care issues for whomever is responsible for children's involvement in projects like wikipedia, and I don't believe the foundation, and projects, should simply pass the buck of responsibility upstream to the parent. Encyclopedia's are rightly exciting and interesting to children, and I think it's just reality that large numbers of participants are minors (wiki's fun, right! :-) - we really should at least talk about whether or not these participants are protected / treated / advised appropriately. for example, it would be my advice to a minor that it's inappropriate for them to join this (not safe for work discussion) about whether or not to include 'hardcore photos' in the oral sex article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oral_sex#Hardcore_photos ) There are important ethical issues here (maybe legal ones too, I don't know) - I've tried to reach out to Volunteering Australia ( http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) who I hope may be able to offer some advice about good practice in working with volunteer kids etc. but I think this might be able to go much further much quicker on a foundation level. I'd like to see some concrete progress (a report, some ideas, anything really!) related to ensuring appropriate and adequate measures are in place to protect child participants in foundation projects. I've copied this message Angela, who I hope I may persuade to raise this issue with the advisory board, and also sj who may be able to raise the issue with the board, or perhaps join this discussion to offer any ideas about handy next steps. Regardless, I'll hop back on this list following a meeting with Volunteering Australia, just in case they have any useful or interesting advice :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Andrew Garrett wrote: On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote: On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358st=0p=204846#entry204846 I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see better governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we need to talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're overdue. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent, irrational and entirely lacking in substance. If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on such images, then those children should be supervised in their internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate. It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or usage, and certainly not to make arbitrary rules regarding said usage on the basis of a single culture's sensibilities on children and sexuality, especially sensibilities as baseless and harmful as this one. I agree that a common sense approach is warranted. In large measure applying complex controls on child viewing is totally unrealistic. We would begin with the problem of defining what is too young. In an other topic, underage drinking, it is relatively far easier to define the offending act but the age at which drinking is permitted still varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. So what age is appropriate for viewing such material? 12? 16? 18? 21? And even if we agree on an age, except for the few self-identified individuals how are we to know what someone's age really is? Those who are too young very quickly learn that lying is a valuable skill founded upon necessity. Not many years ago in a bible-belt suburb there was a very loud campaign to block books that depicted same sex parents from a school library. There was no question of those parents engaging in sexual activity in the books, only a depiction that they could be loving and committed parents just as much as opposite sex parents. The aim of the books was to combat the development of homophobia among children of normal
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
Thanks for the link to the 'youth protection' page, geni - I've linked to it from Wikipedia:Child protection rather than redirect or abandon that page just yet - I hope we might make some progress :-) With that in mind, it occurred to me that this list would be a good spot to ask folks if they are aware of any child protection measures in place in any of the WMF communities. I get the feeling that some feel child protection measures might either be fundamentally a bad thing, or in some way be a net negative, perhaps in terms of participation etc. - if this is your view, pipe up! It would be good to debate a little, and try and find some common ground and move forward :-) So here's my question - is anyone out there aware of any community discussion / policies / practices in regard to regulating children's participation in a project - be it a wikipedia of any language, or any project in the wiki-verse. I'd also really like to extend this to ask those readers of this list who partipate in other collaborative projects, or have experience of other large web sites, to see what measures are out there, and how they might work. Finally, I'd like to repeat my request that the smarter brains than I on the advisory board might like to offer some thoughts in this area - or maybe any foundation staff, and / or board members could indicate whether or not it's been discussed, and whether or not I might have any luck in getting this issue onto the radar - I think it's very important. best, Peter, PM. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/16 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection cheers, Peter, PM. Already been addressed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Youth_protection In practice defacto policy is that we remove personal information posted by younger users. -- geni ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
Hi all, On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358st=0p=204846#entry204846 I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see better governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we need to talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're overdue. I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue - is there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or could I just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory board's ear to raise this with them. best, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection cheers, Peter, PM. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.eduwrote: On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358st=0p=204846#entry204846 I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see better governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we need to talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're overdue. I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue - is there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or could I just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory board's ear to raise this with them. best, Peter, PM. Wikipedia is not porn. 29 posts left. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
No silly - it's a mistake! (don't be so grumpy. - or be aware that this could come across as grumpy at least) I recall the grumbles when Greg sent something out last year or the year before, and feel the same about this as that - the folk sending the email are using an imperfect system, but overall it's worth it - I'm hope that those feeling personally affronted by such an approach can take solace in something or other, and just generally relax a notch or two :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, John Vandenbergjay...@gmail.com wrote: I had forgotten that my bot gave me a second vote. Is that a joke? My bot, which has a bot flag on two projects, was sent an email asking it to vote. Is that a joke? -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/7 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider') My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere, best, Peter, PM. Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer. We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and discuss. I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree? cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-) (which just in case folk haven't seen is here -- http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do. Don't think of this has obeying laws, think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests. Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate... ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider') My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere, best, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions
Hi all,
It's been almost a month since the last post in this 'flagged revisions'
thread (sincere apologies if I've failed to find discussion which has no
doubt been occurring on lists and wikis everywhere!) - I wanted to ask for
an update from the folk at the coalface working on getting flagged revisions
ready for the english wikipedia.
There's a growing perception over at the english wiki that there is
technical programming work still outstanding in order for the flagged
revisions extension to be enabled - this is somewhat at odds with my
previous understanding that in fact, the code was ready. I think it is
becoming rather important for us to be very clear about the status quo.
(for example see jimbo's comments;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forumdiff=prevoldid=302095508and
ensuing discussion about whether or not more programmers would be
helpful :-)
It would be great from my perspective to answer the following questions;
- Who will 'make the call' to switch flagged revisions on for the english
wikipedia - Brion? another developer? foundation staff?
- Is there any more technical programming outstanding to complete the
extension?
- Does the team / person responsible for completing this work feel
adequetely resourced? - is there any more the community or foundation can do
to expedite?
If foundation staff, and not the technical team, are delaying the activation
of this extention, perhaps for PR reasons to co-incide WIkimania and Flagged
Revisions, then to a degree I understand - I do however feel that the
english community would appreciate this information - in many ways it's a
volatile time amongst the en editors ('ain't it always!), so openess and
transparency become even more important!
best regards,
Peter,
PM.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Permanent deletion (tangent to the national portrait gallery thing)
Hi all, As a tangent to the national portrait gallery thing, I though I'd raise something which I've chatted about previously (possibly here, but certainly with various community members) which seems unresolved. My understanding of the status quo is that when a commons administrator deletes an image, that image remains available to all other commons administrators. In the context of the NPG's request, I thought it was interesting to confirm that even if Derrick deleted all his uploaded images, they do, in fact, remain available to him, and all other 'community' members with the sysop. flag - I'm unsure as to the implications / consequences of this in terms of the NPG action, who presumably would be pretty frustrated if Derrick deleted all the images, and another, perhaps more pseudonymous, administrator, were to restore them all (likely with the support of 'the community' at this point). I chatted with User:Lar about this a bit here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#permanent_deletion and gave the example which concerns me more there - which is illegal and potentially illegal images of children on foundation projects. Commons administrators will be able to see an image here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Brip.jpgaction=editredlink=1 which I considered to be borderline at best, and maybe an illegal image. I consider the fact that I can write 'Commons administrators will be able to see an image here' to be the heart of the problem! I hope the foundation might consider a software tweak of some sort to allow for permanent deletion - along with this tweak I feel sure the foundation staff could propose a sensible set of criteria which would have broad support. cheers, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Permanent deletion (tangent to the national portrait gallery thing)
It's heartening to hear that the foundation has zapped images in the past - presumably because they were potentially illegal? I'm also heartened by the fact that this isn't actually a huge problem at the moment, so can be managed on a case by case basis - is there a good way of letting someone appropriate know about an image which is rather close to the line? (the follow on from this, of course, is to ask whether or not there's any established policy or practice in this area, and whether or not it 'works' enough of the time?) I'd be happier still if the image I linked to in my previous post was permanently deleted, which by my judgment would be the best outcome. cheers, Peter, PM. On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:45 PM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] I consider the fact that I can write 'Commons administrators will be able to see an image here' to be the heart of the problem! I hope the foundation might consider a software tweak of some sort to allow for permanent deletion [snip] Permanent actions are antithetical to the notion of liberal access. We can be reasonably liberal with our trust because there is so little that can't be undone. Images with significant legal issues are rare enough that they can be easily handled as exceptions without changing the software at all. The foundation is perfectly capable of fully deleting images and has done so in the past. I don't see that any change is required. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions
Hi all, It's been 10 days since the last note on flagged revisions, which is sufficiently important to warrant a follow up at this point in my view. I'll try and focus the questions a bit in order not to pester, but with the intention of helping things forward; see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 for bug details. * Flagged Revisions is approved for use on the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that there really isn't that much technical work still to do on the extension - is this true? * Is there anything a regular editor such as myself can do to help prioritise this in the hearts, minds and fingers of our wonderful developers? * Personally, I believe this function to be one of the most important matters before the foundation currently, I further believe that this view is relatively widely held (and sure, widely reviled too - but this is a wiki, right!) - I've copied foundation-l in on this note with the intention of further general discussion occurring there, and bug-specific chat only on the wiki-tech list, I hope this is an appropriate use of resources :-) I've offered appreciation, a dollop of charm, and a little bit of money to try and keep this moving forward I'm not sure I'm above offering sex, so please throw me a bone for the sake of the decorum of these lists, if nothing else :-) best, Peter, PM. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Am I confused or didn't enwp approved flagged revisions, but then it was held up due to purely technical reasons ... what is this crap now? -- Forwarded message -- From: K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: with apologies for re-vitalising a slightly old thread -I have a couple of follow ups, which it'd be great to try and make some progress on My understanding is that Aaron (whom I haven't 'met' - so hello!) has completed work on a test configuration of flagged revisions - I hope it's appropraite for me to ask directly on this list whether or not Aaron considers this development complete? (my understanding is that the extension is pretty much ready to go?) There is understandably considerable interest in the timeframe for installing flagged revisions, I would hope it would be a positive step to set some timeframes a bit tighter than 'hopefully by wikimedia' ;-) - is this list an appropriate context for such discusison, and if so (hopefullly) - could someone appropriately empowered flesh out the next steps a bit more, and maybe try and establish a timetable of sorts? My intention in posting about this every so often is to ensure that such an important development doesn't sort of slip through the cracks - I think communication on this matter has to date been ok, but not great - it'll be cool to improve it a bit :-) cheers, Peter, PM. The implementations depend on a per wiki basis depending on consensus, for example, wikinews and a few others such as the German Wikipedia already run it. The en.wiki is currently also looking at a slightly modified version nicked named Flagged Protections which is basically designed to work the same way protection does, articles are only covered by it when protected to a certain level. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Proposals re : sexual content on wikimedia
Hi all, I saw this news item today; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm and felt that it was tangentially related to the discussions on this list concerning sexual content on wikimedia - it's prompted me to make this reply anywhoo (both the story and the comments are worth reading, and I feel they deal with the 'baby' and 'bathwater' aspects reasonably well). In a bid to avoid Birgitte's ignore list (the ignominy ! ;-) I thought I'd respond to a few further comments and detail my proposals / reasoning for good ways forward; ( see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content for details on my proposals ) Firstly, the issue of whether or not Wikimedia should try and meet the needs of a market, for example schools, who prefer to not display images of sexual activity, for me is a somewhat moot - the issue is more that wikimedia's policies in this area are not the result of careful thought, we're really more just ended up in the status quo. It seems sensible to me to closely examine whether or not we like that status quo, and whether or not there are policies and practicies on various projects which should be improved. I think we're doing some things a bit wrong, and should want to improve, as oppose to inviting someone else to do them better. Perhaps my slightly dull, but canonical, example of this is that I don't think it's necessary for commons to host pictures of topless women, taken at the beach, without their permission - this sort of user genearted content is a net detriment to the project in my view. I'd be interested to hear if anyone disputes this specific asasertion. My 'proposal 1' is that sexual content be restricted from userspace - I concur with Jimbo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Walesdiff=prevoldid=284543731) that an image of shaven genitalia is inappropriate on a userpage My 'proposal 2' in the linked page is broadly synonymous with the technical implementation discussed by Brion previously - the addition of some sort of soft 'opt in' / age verification requirement seems a bit of a no-brainer to me - I had an interesting chat recently with someone who was insistent that the lack of such means Wikimedia is technically breaking UK and Australian law - I have no idea as to the veracity of this (or whether it matters!) - but am interested in the ideas and opinions of those more cluey in this area. My 'proposal 3' suggests that we need to apply more rigour in checking the model releases and licensing - basically we're just too easy to game at the moment, and various mischievous souls have delighted in leading various communities up garden paths in the past - what's interesting is some community's willingness to be somewhat complicit in this process (the 'we must assume good faith, so yeah - this image is clearly fine' problem - the burden of evidence is all wrong in my book). Those antipodeans who've heard be chat about this at Wiki Wed. here in Sydney may be interested to hear that there is some follow up interest in this topic in general, and I may be boring more folk on this subject with a nattily written post on a Fairfax blog - I'm particularly keen at the moment to try and discern whether or not it's possible to move forward in any way on this issue, or whether or not we're sort of stuck in the bed we've made to date all thoughts and ideas most welcome... :-) cheers, Peter PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Re : Masti - I agree with your position that if the license seems suspect, and the contributor can't (or won't) provide something a bit more, then the image should be deleted - that's not the consensus on commons however, for what that's worth - these doubts have been raised, and the image remains. The general thinking seems to be that the burden of proof lies with those suspicious of the original license - I think this is a bit silly. Also - re : quoting - I'm afraid I'm a 'gmailer' who only hits 'reply' to post again - though I'm semi-aware that this does something wrong in regard to quoting, I'm not sure what, nor how to fix it - my apologies. Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to be made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also important, I reckon cheers, Peter PM. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in reputation and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled about the parameters of discussion in this area - here are some handy bullet points; I recall hearing this very argument several years ago when wikipedia was some orders of magnitude smaller of course the empiric evidence shows otherwise, wikipedia grew beyond anyone's predictions in spite the if you don't do X, things we downhill, ikipedia will lose all reputatin, wikipedia will be harmed, wikipedia will become useless where X ranges could e censor nudity, change the sysop election system or stop anon edits, delete pokemon or whatever the unsourmountable-obstacle-of-the-week is. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
fair enough, Pedro - I certainly don't want any weight, in terms of argument, placed on my opinion that this matters - I'd much rather stick to the substantive issues of the matter at hand it's more about discussing wether or not it's a problem that wmf hosts pic.s of topless chicks on the beach without their permssion.. and other assorted problems with explicit sexual images being easily accessible on wmf projects. cheers, Peter PM. On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to be made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also important, I reckon cheers, Peter No, it doesn't meanthat. It means, if you're going to play the the future of wikipedia is at stake then you better backup your hand with arguments and evidence ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Re : This from brion; On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle; the default view is a safe search which excludes items which have been marked as adult in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the restricted search and get at everything if you want it. .Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this (basically an expansion of the bad image list implemented long ago for requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely to be accepted than the one true neutral article model of Wikipedia. -- brion This is exceptionally heartening from my perspective - I believe a very simple and straightforward system like this would help a great deal. It is of course a great strength of wiki-processes to be able to allow large groups of volunteers to maintain appropriate image descriptive tagging which could power such a system - I've said before that I'm a little surprised that it's not embraced as a good way forward - but either ways, it's a good thing in my book. I believe this would be a valuable (and necessary) software addition from the foundation - is it really a fairly simple technical implementation, brion? others? cheers, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue. Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for example, an image of a young woman topless bathing, is not currently discussed or taken into consideration. There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being captured. The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the project. It's just plain wrong, really. I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the image, permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting - the media should be deleted. Does anyone disagree? best, Peter, PM ps - happy to talk about things like genital warts, and very specific imagery too, but focus is awfully hard to maintain here :-) pps - I really like John's idea, and will mention more on that anon (or probably on wiki) It's my belief that commons On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote: 2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru: I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are too bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who wants to get to the template can click on show link. Same with the pictures: as one solution, one hides the picture writing This image depicts a vagina. Whoever wants to see the image, clicks on show. Pretty much your proposal has been shot down repeatedly on en:wp. Which other wiki communities are actually pushing for this? Any of them? BLP, model release etc. issues are quite separate from this. You're talking about the body part itself. I am not the one who raised the issue and I am personally fine with any images. I just want to state that this is a community issue, not a global issue. Btw yesterday an apparent troll started a topic on ru.wp claiming that nude images represent pornography which is illegal according to Russian laws. The topic has been speedily closed. Cheers Yaroslav ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
heh - as I say in the essay (and the noticeboard) - oh the irony! My hands are indeed filthy - although I never went blind ;-) - and yes, we still need to talk about this stuff. cheers, Peter, PM. How about 'unclean hands'. In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an image of a erect penis on the main noticeboard, and said that an editor down the pub told you that it was Giano's member. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboarddiff=nextoldid=284498586 (not safe for work) And you have embedded these images, which you decry as inappropriate, on your own essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
Hello all, Those of you foolish enough to watchlist the english wikipedia's admin.s noticeboard, or Jimmy's talk page, might have noticed a broo ha ha this last weekend concerning nude pictures on userpages. Basically, a user has an image of a shaven vagina on their userpage with the caption 'No more Bush, phew!' - a witticism that's been floating around US political satire for a few years. An admin. asked Jimbo what he thought, and he responded quite strongly (The user page is unacceptable and should be speedy deleted, and the user blocked if he insists on recreating it) - a discussion about whether or not to delete the page resulted in an avalache of 'keep' opinions, and jimmy continues to be rather strongly criticised on his talk page for expressing his opinion. Anywhoo.. this list not being a sort of round up / gossip column for wiki-nonsense, I'll get to the substantive point - just wanted to give a bit of context first :-) The WMF has a large, and growing collection of material reasonably described as pornography. Here's a few questions about the foundation's role in ensuring the projects are responsible media hosts - Can the foundation play a role in discussing and establishing things like what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' on the various projects? Can the foundation offer guidance, and dare I say it 'rules' for the boundaries of behaviour? Is there space, beyond limiting project activities to legality, to offer firm leadership and direction in project governance? I'm hoping the answer to all of the above is a careful 'yes'. - for example, would our projects suffer if the foundation mandated that material loosely definied as 'sexual content' was restricted from the social 'user' space? (conversely, would there be any benefit to project health / reputation / smooth running?) (that's a 'no' and a 'yes' from me :-) Currently commons and the english wikipedia have very few restrictions beyond limiting media to what volunteers hope is legal. Media which is deleted as possibly illegal remains available to administrators, and no effort beyond the assumption of good faith is possible to ascertain model ages and release permissions - I neither hope nor believe this is sustainable. On a tangential note, I've also been looking at various governmental, and NGO 'codes of conduct', some of which recommend things like accurate record keeping on model information, ensuring users confirm that they wish to view material reasonably defined as 'adult', etc. etc. - perhaps we could take some pointers from some of these paths which are already well trodden. It's also my view that, generally speaking, the level of conversation about this is rubbish - please try to avoid pulling either the 'censorship' and 'prude' guns or the 'immoral' and 'depraved' guns out - they're just not helpful. For more from me, read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex cheers, Peter PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
my tuppence in amongst the many voices :-). 1) If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other I am curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves. I am assuming that (with some exceptions) they cluster closer to the English model than the German, but I am just guessing. Do they? Generally, I think it's probably best to consider the english wikipedia as a fundamentally different beast to other projects - for a variety of reasons, not least the sheer scale of the project. That aside - I'd share the impression that the German project has evolved stronger structure / governance processes than many / any others, and to that degree smaller projects are indeed clustering closer to the english wiki. 2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which put an unusually high priority on quality . I am curious to know what quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place. Philipp says a high threshold for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others? You may well have read this before - but it's put rather well by 'Kato' over at Wikipedia Review; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=23140view=findpostp=159205 basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm; 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view. It's very heartening to see this important issue getting discussion / attention :-) cheers, Peter PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
quick bit extra - flagged revisions for BLP material is also a bit of a no-brainer, and should be recommended by the foundation immediately as a valuable software improvement - it's really part of point 1) (Semi 'protext' all BLP material - curse my typo!) cheers, Peter PM. On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote: basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive quality and minimise 'BLP' harm; 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or those not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and responsible to remove the material in my view. As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. There will always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting point for guidelines, I support these. Philippe ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
G'day all, This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue. I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in this area, and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination of the issues is difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted, though serious minded and 'not safe for work' essay about this on the english wikipedia herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex- but would like to specifically raise the following points which represent my perspective; - Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media of all types should be freely available to use, and re-use. - In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment. I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently being discussed on the 'Commons' project; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's permission shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm towards recommending the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your thoughts :-) cheers, Peter PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
