Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[WereSpielChequers]

There are several issues here. One is that we are an open source site, “The
idea we discussed was that NetSpark would either donate or heavily discount
the cost of the filter for Wikipedia." Surely Sanger knows us well enough
to know not to suggest that we ditch open source and work with a software
supplier who boasts of "proprietary algorithms" on their website?

Secondly "The company says its technology is a “learning engine” that can
analyze the components of an image precisely enough to determine the
difference between a pornographic image and an advertorial image that has
models wearing swimwear or lingerie." Which might be OK if we were a
monocultural site that deemed topless women not OK and bikini clad women
OK. But we are aiming for a global audience with a series of products that
include an encyclopaedia in some of whose pages it is entirely appropriate
to show images of women wearing less than a bikini.

Thirdly if we do introduce a filter it needs to work across multiple
cultures - including for people who don't want to see models wearing
swimwear or lingerie.

Also isn't it a bit rich for Fox News to be talking about porn? Afterall as
a Murdoch company they are in the same corporate stable as page3.com.

I'm sufficiently sold on the idea of an image filter to have drafted one of
the options myself, but it really doesn't help the case to have people
suggesting systems that are so incompatible with our values. If Sanger
really wanted us to introduce an image filter he'd be far more effective if
he lobbied for solutions that are compatible with our ethos and values.

Regards

WSC


On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit  wrote:

>
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/
>
> "Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
> that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
> stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
> FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
> far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
>
> Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
> really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
> print it if it wasn't true...
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Privilege

[Fred Bauder]

The exercise of privilege is not usually called bullying, nor, when its
prerogatives are denied are its holders called victims.

Wikipedia does accord privilege to authority but only published authority.

Fred


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Fred Bauder]

> On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
>>
>> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
>> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords.  I've sometimes
> been
>> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that
>> has
>> some form of net nanny software.
>
> Funny you should say that, I wasn't able to access Wiktionary at work
> today
> because it was "suspicious". No idea what that was about...

When I first set up Wikinfo on ibiblio at the University of North
Carolina the page "socialism" would not load because they had a net
filter in place which blocked that word.

Fred



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Fred Bauder]

"Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger has launched a campaign against the
online encyclopedia for content filters to be put in place."

Part of being a reference work. There are aspects of reality that are
offensive or disturbing. I think we've made considerable progress on this
matter in terms of removing or offering tools to prevent surprising
people with gratuitous salacious material, but a refractory remnant of
simple fact will always remain a part of Wikipedia. Some of it very
important information even for children.

Fred

> On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit  wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/
>>
>> "Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
>> that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
>> stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
>> FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
>> far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
>>
>> Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
>> really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
>> print it if it wasn't true...



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Thomas Dalton]

On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
>
> In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
> prevent access to pages that include certain keywords.  I've sometimes
been
> stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has
> some form of net nanny software.

Funny you should say that, I wasn't able to access Wiktionary at work today
because it was "suspicious". No idea what that was about...
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Peter Coombe]

It's telling that Fox News are using the Simple English Wikipedia.
Also someone should let them know you only need to type in one of the
search boxes to do a search, not both.

> NetSpark's technology was used in 2010 with Israeli technology company 
> Cellcom to filter the mobile web, creating a "Kosher Internet" for Jewish 
> users.

These sound like exactly the people we need to be working
with.

Pete / the wub


On 10 September 2012 19:51, Steve Summit  wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/
>
> "Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
> that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
> stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
> FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
> far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."
>
> Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
> really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
> print it if it wasn't true...
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Nathan]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
 wrote:
> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "best". Having never browsed around
> specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's put
> porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact Wikipedia has
> an excellent categorization system and is allowed even in the workplace and
> schools, and is a globally-famous site, this qualifies my statement.
>

I've re-read both your posts. In the second, quoted above, it sounds
like you are saying that for someone who isn't looking for porn,
Wikipedia is an easy place to find it. But in your original message,
you said Wikipedia was ideal "...for someone seeking porn." But of
course that isn't true. People who are seeking porn will, in all
likelihood, find actual porn. Wikipedia, contra your assertion, is
certainly not the easiest place to find it.

"Blocked sites" are hardly an impediment - Google Image search isn't
blocked anywhere Google itself is accessible, and any sexual search
term will return a thousand thousand images with nothing for a
filtering program to block. By the same token, the fame (or lack) of a
particular site is irrelevant.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Risker]

In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
prevent access to pages that include certain keywords.  I've sometimes been
stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has
some form of net nanny software.

As it turns out, it seems that software isn't all that great and can
significantly affect performance. And certainly we don't know much about
what expectations they had if WMF projects accepted the "free" offer.

Risker

On 10 September 2012 16:08, Bob the Wikipedian
wrote:

> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "best". Having never browsed around
> specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's put
> porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact Wikipedia has
> an excellent categorization system and is allowed even in the workplace and
> schools, and is a globally-famous site, this qualifies my statement.
>
>
> On 9/10/2012 2:19 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than
>>> Wikipedia
>>> for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>  Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to
>> the Internets, Bob, take a look around.
>>
>> __**_
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
> __**_
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Bob the Wikipedian]

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "best". Having never browsed around 
specifically for porn, and Wikipedia having been the only site that's 
put porn in my face without my asking for it, on top of the fact 
Wikipedia has an excellent categorization system and is allowed even in 
the workplace and schools, and is a globally-famous site, this qualifies 
my statement.


On 9/10/2012 2:19 PM, Nathan wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
 wrote:

I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia
for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.

Bob



Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to
the Internets, Bob, take a look around.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Nathan]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
 wrote:
> I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than Wikipedia
> for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.
>
> Bob
>
>

Really? Wikipedia is the best porn site you can imagine? Welcome to
the Internets, Bob, take a look around.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Bob the Wikipedian]

I can't imagine a site more accessible and better organized than 
Wikipedia for someone seeking porn. They're quite correct.


Bob

On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Steve Summit wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/

"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."

Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
print it if it wasn't true...

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Fox News says we have a "rampant porn problem"

[Steve Summit]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/

"Wikipedia has turned down a more or less free offer for software
that would keep minors and unsuspecting web surfers from
stumbling upon graphic images of sex organs, acts and emissions,
FoxNews.com has learned -- sexually explicit images that remain
far and away the most popular items on the company's servers."

Funny, I didn't realize we (or commons, which is what they're
really talking about) were a porn site, but I guess they wouldn't
print it if it wasn't true...

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Only on WP is the victim a "bully"

[Marc Riddell]

on 9/10/12 12:26 PM, Matthew Jacobs at sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:

>skip<

> I'm really, really sick of administrators acting like complete jerks, and
> not only failing to get admonished in any significant way for it, but
> people making up excuses for their dickish behavior, and then attacking the
> victim as a "bully".

>skip<
> 
> Sxeptomaniac

This is what happens when give a great deal of power over others to persons
who, in their own lives, feel they have little or none. I have been asking
for a more mature, objective oversite of this situation for several years
now, but have gotten no support with this.

Marc Riddell


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Only on WP is the victim a "bully"

[Charles Matthews]

On 10 September 2012 17:26, Matthew Jacobs  wrote:

> Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
> The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
> by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just plain
> ridiculous, but it's beyond absurd that he would then be called a "bully"
> for trying to get it fixed when no-one apparently seemed to interested in
> helping him.
>
> That is a very poor description of what went on here. Roth could have
called out critics who made misleading statements about his work quite some
time ago. He got a direct reply from us.

Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling

[Charles Matthews]

On 10 September 2012 17:32, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source.  The
>>> issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
>>> preference.
>>>
>> The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
>> existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless,
>> and
>> we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his
>> biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was
>> published,
>> in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to
>> be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice,
>> phrased
>> in terms of secondary sources.
>>
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> He was given the wrong advice about secondary sources...  and it's his
> fault?
>
> This is definitely Wikipedia's problem.  Wikipedia's policy *as practiced*
> failed him, and failed us.
>
>
> I believe he was given somewhat inaccurate advice, and I say this from the
snippet he quoted in the New Yorker; which was not the whole mail, just the
part he decided to quote. The mail as a whole may have been more accurate.

It looks as if there was some mutual incomprehension. If you go to the bank
and ask for a loan, and say "I fully intend to pay it back", the bank may
ask for collateral (on which they can rely), without saying that they don't
believe you.  That is the nuance differentiating "credible" and "reliable",
if you want.

I didn't say that it was Roth's fault that the mail he got apparently gave
excess weight to secondary sources. I'm not in a position to say that it
was the fault of the author of the mail either; and OTRS volunteers run the
risk of blame, often unfairly IMX.

There has been the usual pile-on blaming the community as a whole for a
lack of courtesy. I was contesting that by trying to infer where something
went wrong here, so that we get an accurate case study. The result stands
as perfectly good in encyclopedic terms, as far as I can see.

The furore about daring to doubt an author's word seems to need bringing
down to the actual facts.

"Failed us": I don't agree with that. Adverse publicity based on inaccurate
rendition of the facts is bad reporting. We suffer bad reporting quite
frequently.

Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:

Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source.  The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.

The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless, and
we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his
biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was published,
in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to
be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice, phrased
in terms of secondary sources.


Let me get this straight:

He was given the wrong advice about secondary sources...  and it's his fault?

This is definitely Wikipedia's problem.  Wikipedia's policy *as practiced*
failed him, and failed us.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Only on WP is the victim a "bully"

[Matthew Jacobs]

Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just plain
ridiculous, but it's beyond absurd that he would then be called a "bully"
for trying to get it fixed when no-one apparently seemed to interested in
helping him.

We should show concern when someone in the know shows up and says an
article is wrong, and not get territorial, which is what I'm suspecting
happened. How about "we're really not happy that the article is wrong, but
we need a source we can point to outside of WP for this fact. We can't
prove that you're actually who you say you are here. Can you make a
statement in a professional blog, or anywhere, almost, where your identity
is verified? Since it's about your own thoughts about your own work, that's
all we really need." Instead, the admin gave him some WP jargon about how
he's not a reliable source, so he took it to the news and complained, as he
rightly should, based on the way he was apparently treated.

I'm really, really sick of administrators acting like complete jerks, and
not only failing to get admonished in any significant way for it, but
people making up excuses for their dickish behavior, and then attacking the
victim as a "bully".

And yes, this is somewhat personal for me, in case you hadn't guessed.
During a content dispute, an administrator tried to gain the upper hand
against me by claiming I'd said off-site that I would intentionally add
false information to WP. Considering that kind of deceitful behavior goes
against my very personality, I was quite angry that he made an attack like
that up, and called the claim out for the lie it was. Can you guess how
that ended? I was accused by a number of editors (particularly, but not
limited to, his cabal of buddies) of trying to bully the administrator, and
they went so far as to attempt to make it part of an RFC against me and
others. That was years ago, but nothing ever changes on WP. Same old
dickishness, different year.

And people wonder why EN.WP can't keep editors.

Sxeptomaniac


> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:00:35 +0200
> From: Luca Motoc 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] trying to bully us?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> 2012/9/8 Katie Chan 
>
> > Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
> > about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia
> > content, and is throwing his weight around?
> >
> > If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
> > Wikipedia editors.
> >
> > KTC
> >
> > --
> > Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> > - Heinrich Heine
> >
> >
> > __**_
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> >
>
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling

[Charles Matthews]

On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee  wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
>> "credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's
>> terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>
> How's he supposed to know the difference?
>

Oh, I don't know, they keep saying he should get a Nobel Prize as a
novelist, so perhaps his command of the English language is above average.
There is a nuance.

>
> Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source.  The
> issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
> preference.
>
>
The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless, and
we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his
biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was published,
in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to
be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice, phrased
in terms of secondary sources. As
WP:ABOUTSELF tells
us, Roth simply had to get his view published; which he did. The caveat in
the article by 20 August was actually enough to cast great doubt on the
other story about his inspiration, at least for any attentive reader.

It is traditional to hang all sorts of other considerations on these
incidents, but from the point of view of getting the case study straight,
it isn't that helpful.

Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:

You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
"credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.


How's he supposed to know the difference?

Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source.  The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l