Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Richfield]

That's the nice thing about the Internet: What Wikipedia doesn't want,
some people will host, and what they don't want, some other people
will host.  Everyone has standards; the standards just differ from
project to project.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Mike  Dupont
 wrote:
> well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on
> archive org, I dont want to host them,
> mike
-- 
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Mike Dupont]

well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on
archive org, I dont want to host them,
mike

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>
> Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve 
> TVTropes.
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +, Mike Dupont wrote:
>> well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples
>> personal lives.
>> I dont want to deal with stuff like that,
>> mike
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike  Dupont
>>  wrote:
>> > Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia?
>> > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Search
>> > mike
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
>> >> forced to censor a
>> >> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>> >>
>> >> ? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
>> >>
>> >> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in 
>> >> our movies. It
>> >> somehow feels soviet. :-/
>> >>
>> >> sincerely,
>> >> ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > James Michael DuPont
>> > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
>> > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
>> > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Michael DuPont
>> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
>> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
>> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Kim Bruning]

Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve 
TVTropes.

sincerely,  
Kim Bruning

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +, Mike Dupont wrote:
> well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples
> personal lives.
> I dont want to deal with stuff like that,
> mike
> 
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike  Dupont
>  wrote:
> > Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia?
> > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Search
> > mike
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
> >> forced to censor a
> >> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
> >>
> >> ? ? ? ?http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
> >>
> >> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in 
> >> our movies. It
> >> somehow feels soviet. :-/
> >>
> >> sincerely,
> >> ? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Michael DuPont
> > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Mike Dupont]

well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples
personal lives.
I dont want to deal with stuff like that,
mike

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike  Dupont
 wrote:
> Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia?
> http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Search
> mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>>        http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
>>
>> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our 
>> movies. It
>> somehow feels soviet. :-/
>>
>> sincerely,
>>        Kim Bruning
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
>>
>> Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of
>> difference?
>
>
> I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media coverage
> (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage).  To me, at
> least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was stoked by that
> media coverage.
>
> So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference.

As I recall SOPA was already dead in the water before the blackout
occurred.  Am I wrong about this?

The law was quite clearly flawed, even beyond what I think the current
US congress is capable of passing (at least, without some direct tie
to terrorism).

Interestingly, one of the best arguments against SOPA will be if Jimmy
Wales loses the argument about his newest cause.  If websites like
TVShack.net can be shut down without relying on SOPA-like language,
then this would be preferred, since 1) current law is much less likely
to hit legitimate sites like Google and Wikipedia; and 2) Extradition
under SOPA is much less likely to meet the dual criminality standard.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Mike Dupont]

Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia?
http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/index.php?search=rape&fulltext=Search
mike

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>
> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
> forced to censor a
> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>
>        http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/
>
> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our 
> movies. It
> somehow feels soviet. :-/
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the
>> links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads
>> here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages
>> were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored
>> them without hearing back from Google.
>
>That's odd. As far as I can see, they all have ads on them.

(There are ad networks besides Google's.)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield  wrote:
>
> > This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
> > long time.  Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
> >
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes
> > - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
> > because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK
> > according to Google's terms.
>
>
> This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the
> links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads
> here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages
> were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored
> them without hearing back from Google.
>


That's odd. As far as I can see, they all have ads on them.

See e.g.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsNotRapeIfYouEnjoyedIt
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldManMarryingAChild
etc.

I note they all have a request, in bold: "No Real Life Examples, Please!".
That seems to be new.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Gerard]

On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield  wrote:

> Wow, they moved fast!  I read the blog post and then went to check,
> and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day
> after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be
> some mistake.  How long were the articles actually deleted?


Coupla days. But it turns out TVtropes is big enough that the Internet
now notices when Google starts getting into corporate censorship.
Also, the Tropers were more than a little annoyed at the response of
the site's founder and proprietor.

The site is CC by-sa, but I don't think there are downloadable dumps
or anything.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Richfield]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield  wrote:
>
>> This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
>> long time.  Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes
>> - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
>> because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK
>> according to Google's terms.
>
>
> This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the
> links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads
> here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages
> were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored
> them without hearing back from Google.

Wow, they moved fast!  I read the blog post and then went to check,
and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day
after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be
some mistake.  How long were the articles actually deleted?

-- 
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Gerard]

On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield  wrote:

> This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
> long time.  Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes
> - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
> because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK
> according to Google's terms.


This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the
links at the beginning. The pages were already marked "don't put ads
here". Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages
were removed, the internet said "wtf" and TVtropes has now restored
them without hearing back from Google.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Richfield]

This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
long time.  Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes
- it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK
according to Google's terms.

With that said, it does make a great case for why Wikimedia should
remain independent: we have enough to do to ensure the quality of our
project without also worrying about whether we'll irritate Google.

[[:en:User:Slashme]]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[David Gerard]

On 27 June 2012 05:59, geni  wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>> I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than
>> any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google
>> wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they
>> have had personal contact with.

> The problem with your theory is that firstly it assumes a level of
> control that those people don't have and secondly that you are
> forgetting that Google is a PLC.


It's already been established that Wikimedia conspires directly with
Rupert Murdoch's news organisation:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061602.html

- so in comparison, Andreas' claims are *relatively* sane.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Theo10011  wrote:

> So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What
> you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end
> of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in
> fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers
> as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2
> Million received from Google in 2010.
>


I know Google gave 2 million in 2010, though I am unsure whether that makes
Google influence less or more likely.

To recap, posters here said that what happened to TV Tropes – i.e. Google
influencing their content decisions – couldn't happen to Wikipedia. That
seems rather blue-eyed.



> Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your
> polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues
> that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be
> paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to
> care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is
> a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have
> been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to
> time, and use the platform they have.
>


I'm sure Jimmy would not have been a friend of SOPA, regardless of what
Google thought. But I was truly surprised to see Wikipedia jettison its
"holy of holies" – NPOV – in a poll inviting participation from IPs and
SPAs, and becoming a political actor. Whether the money greased the wheels
or not, it was the sell-out of a principle many had signed up for.

Scott put it rather well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.

Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?


I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media 
coverage (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage).  
To me, at least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was 
stoked by that media coverage.


So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference.

-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling wrote:

>
> Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF
> staff.



Point of clarification:

Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia
community, in the form of the RFC that was run.

Staff developed it because they could be quickly tasked to it; had the RFC
gone the other way, we wouldn't have intervened.

PB

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Tim Starling]

On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote:
> It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> political reasons.

Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF
staff.





-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[geni]

On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.)

The difference being that I've been following Wikipedia criticism for
much longer to the point where I can just view it as a rather
repetitive soap opera.

> I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than
> any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google
> wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they
> have had personal contact with.

The problem with your theory is that firstly it assumes a level of
control that those people don't have and secondly that you are
forgetting that Google is a PLC.


> So, seen from one perspective, all the value that volunteers had created in
> the English Wikipedia over a decade was leveraged to support one view on
> copyrights, which happened to coincide with Google's business interests.
> And Google happened to donate half a million to Wikipedia just around that
> time.

That would be the conspiracy theorist perspective yes.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Theo10011]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than
> any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google
> wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they
> have had personal contact with. I was struck by the following four-month
> timeline the other day:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> October 4 to October 6, 2011: Italian Wikipedia blackout, hailed as
> successful in preventing Italian legislation.
>
> November 18, 2011: Media announce that Google's Sergey Brin is donating
> half a million dollars to Wikipedia.
>
> December 10, 2011: Jimmy first raises the topic of an anti-SOPA Wikipedia
> blackout on Wikipedia.
>
> January 16, 2012: English Wikipedia is blacked out for a day, in an action
> hailed as successful in preventing US legislation.
>

So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What
you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end
of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in
fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers
as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2
Million received from Google in 2010.

Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your
polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues
that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be
paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to
care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is
a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have
been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to
time, and use the platform they have.

Your timeline seems clouded with conspiracy theories. Maybe geni is right,
and you have been hanging around the critics forum too much. I fail to see
the mass conspiracy being alluded to here.

As far as funding goes, I have been around WMF funding discussion more than
a lot of people. The last fundraiser was close to 30 Million USD, majority
of which was accumulated through small donations. Large grants aren't
something that's all that new, WMF has been receiving them for a few years
now, 2012, wasn't particularly that eventful in terms of large grants [1].
I fail to see your point about the "luminaries" being bought off. As a
non-profit, they have to legally declare large grants and mention the
sources of their revenue. I absolutely fail to understand why Jimmy or
anyone would jeopardize their standing now, raising money for an
organization that really has no trouble raising it at this point.

Regards
Theo


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Grants
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> > Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted
> something,
> > and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
> > they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors.
>
> You've been hanging out on wikipedia critics forums too much.



Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.)



> Like most of them you don't appear to realise to what extent wikipedians
> tend to be bloody minded individualists. Cutting a deal with "WMF
> luminaries" or any other cabal you care to propose simply isn't a
> viable approach.




I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than
any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google
wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they
have had personal contact with. I was struck by the following four-month
timeline the other day:

---o0o---

October 4 to October 6, 2011: Italian Wikipedia blackout, hailed as
successful in preventing Italian legislation.

November 18, 2011: Media announce that Google's Sergey Brin is donating
half a million dollars to Wikipedia.

December 10, 2011: Jimmy first raises the topic of an anti-SOPA Wikipedia
blackout on Wikipedia.

January 16, 2012: English Wikipedia is blacked out for a day, in an action
hailed as successful in preventing US legislation.

---o0o---

Frappant, n'est-ce pas? :)

The community vote on the blackout was fairly rushed, and unlike most other
important community votes was open to IPs and single-purpose accounts. They
came to vote in large numbers, and editors marking non-regulars' votes in
the usual way were told to stop.

And it's not as though there wasn't any contact between Jimmy and Brin in
the months before the blackout; their names, along with others, appear on a
joint Open Letter to the US government, opposing SOPA, that appeared in
mid-December.

So, seen from one perspective, all the value that volunteers had created in
the English Wikipedia over a decade was leveraged to support one view on
copyrights, which happened to coincide with Google's business interests.
And Google happened to donate half a million to Wikipedia just around that
time.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.

Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[MZMcBride]

Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
>> an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
>> around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
>> the point ...) just underscore that.
> 
> The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old
> freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to avoid
> my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka "do what you want", vs "do unto
> others";  etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom vs
> -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?))

Libertarianism.

Also, the SOPA strike wasn't necessary; it was disruptive and foolish.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann  wrote:

> * Nathan wrote:
> >It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> >project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> >political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
> >neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
> >doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
> >reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
> >that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
>
> "Neutrality" is an "article" concept, not a "project" concept and the
> protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and
> different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very
> obvious. If the "project" was "neutral", in the sense the concept is
> defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others.
>

I disagree - I think it is a content concept. Content being what people
looking for encyclopedic content will find; just as people have often
argued against advertising on the grounds that it becomes non-neutral
content that questions the impartiality of the encyclopedia, the same is
even more obviously true if all articles are replaced with a political
banner. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance for people who believe
both in neutrality and in protesting SOPA/PIPA, which understandably leads
to tortured arguments like "neutrality is an article concept" and not a
content concept... but such arguments are plainly not true. Anyway, this is
most definitely a sidetrack from the topic of this thread.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Nathan wrote:
>It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
>project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
>political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
>neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
>doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
>reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
>that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.

"Neutrality" is an "article" concept, not a "project" concept and the
protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and
different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very
obvious. If the "project" was "neutral", in the sense the concept is
defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[geni]

On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something,
> and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
> they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors.

You've been hanging out on wikipedia critics forums too much. Like
most of them you don't appear to realise to what extent wikipedians
tend to be bloody minded individualists. Cutting a deal with "WMF
luminaries" or any other cabal you care to propose simply isn't a
viable approach.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> > entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> > itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> > whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
> > the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
> > into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
> > to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
> > abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
>
>
> It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
> neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
> doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
> reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
> that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.




And I still don't understand where all those IPs and single-purpose
accounts voting for the blackout came from, or why administrators were
directed to let their votes stand, when we regularly exclude such votes
from far less important community discussions.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried
> for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
>

Oops, that slashdot report is from November 2010, and refers to the last
time Google put TV Tropes under pressure. My apologies. It doesn't look
like that 2010 slashdot story ever became mainstream news.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
> the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
> into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
> to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
> abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.


It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> > Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
> the
> > pages down, are Google.
> >
> > That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
> Wikimedia.
>
> True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our
> donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what
> Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would
> be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know
> that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that
> their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very
> little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.
>


Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something,
and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors. And if
they agreed to whatever it is, then the press would just happen to report a
few weeks later that Brin has donated half a million to Wikipedia. And if
WMF refused whatever Google wanted, then there simply wouldn't be an
announcement of a Google donation to that amount at the next fundraiser.

No one in the press would "pillory" Google for not donating half a million
that year. After all, no one is obliged to donate to Wikimedia, including
Google.



> It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if
> that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very
> significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again,
> Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking
> ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers,
> or an ad provider.



Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried
for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> 
> I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
> an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
> around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
> the point ...) just underscore that.

The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old
freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to
avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka "do what you want", vs "do
unto others";  etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom
vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?))

It might be useful to try to correct newspapers if they state we set
aside our neutrality. It was precisely our neutrality that was at stake!

Of course if Jimmy wants to do other political things, he should be a
bit careful to either explain to everyone why it's necessary for the
foundation and/or explain that he's doing it independently and his views
do not nescessarily reflect the views of the board, etc etc. I hope he's
doing that consistently. Are you saying that maybe he hasn't?

> Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
> pages down, are Google.
> That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.

Hmmm. I think WMF talks with different departments at Google than TV
Tropes does. It might be useful to enquire?


sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.

Wow! Indeed! Someone somewhere bowed for something to advertizers!
Of course, if we would have had advertizing, we would also have bowed
for them after they of course would have had similar demands. Is
Wikipedia also going to remove rape articles if people are saying they
will not donate if we do not? No way. Why can we tell that to donators
and not to advertizers?

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Todd Allen]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
>> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
>> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>>
>
>
> I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
> an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
> around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
> the point ...) just underscore that.

I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.

Similarly, Jimbo is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants on
behalf of whoever the hell he wants, just like any of us would be.
Being associated with Wikimedia doesn't mean he must personally remain
neutral on things, that's only required of him when he edits.


> That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring
> to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of
> neutrality aside":
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to
> call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard
> O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.

NPOV does not and has never stated "Wikipedia contributors should be
neutral on everything at all times, whether on or off wiki." It
prohibits editors from editorializing in articles, but it's new to me
that it prohibits them from editing in the editorial section of the
newspaper. Jimmy has every right to contribute his opinion to a
political debate in an appropriate forum, and that's an appropriate
forum.


> Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills
> aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned
> would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and
> others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time
> Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online
> encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict
> copyright enforcement.

Poor journalism once again. NPOV never states that WMF must remain
neutral, or as above, the fundraising banners would've violated that
long ago, so nothing needed to be "set aside". It says -articles- must
remain neutral. Articles, not something else.

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-extradition-stopped?newsfeed=true
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
> pages down, are Google.
>
> That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.

True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our
donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what
Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would
be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know
that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that
their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very
little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.

It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if
that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very
significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again,
Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking
ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers,
or an ad provider.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:41:04PM +0100, geni wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> > In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our 
> > movies. It
> > somehow feels soviet. :-/
> 
> A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for
> the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to
> enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made
> explosive tropes are not affected.

TvTropes and en.wp have different foci, so that should not surprise
anyone. (else there wouldn't need to be 2 different wikis)

That said, a number of the expunged topics (eg. movies, books, etc) do
appear to overlap with articles on en.wp, where they are discussed in
our typical dry manner.

(This from a small sample, and they're still working at it, so
ymmv)


sincerely,
Kim Bruning



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>


I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
the point ...) just underscore that.

That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring
to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of
neutrality aside":

---o0o---

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to
call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard
O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.

...

Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills
aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned
would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and
others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time
Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online
encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict
copyright enforcement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-extradition-stopped?newsfeed=true

---o0o---

Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
pages down, are Google.

That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 26/06/2012 3:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between 
Wikipedia and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not 
make comparisons between the two apples to apples.


No, but that's besides the point.  The point is simple:  if you rely on 
advertisers to survive, they get a hammer to use against you if you 
deviate from their message -- whathever that message might be.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
> been
> >> forced to censor a
> >> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
> >>
> >
> > And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> > highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> > donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> > notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
> >
> > We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers
> and
> > focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for
> > information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is
> > the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of
> madness.
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>

Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between Wikipedia
and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not make
comparisons between the two apples to apples.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Todd Allen]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
>
> We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers and
> focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for
> information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is
> the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of madness.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
"That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[geni]

On 26 June 2012 20:30, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up
> with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and
> creepier.


Its more complicated than that. Apart from anything else TVTropes have
been drifting in the direction  of being less lively and more
straitlaced for some time. Clearing out the adult stuff is just part
of the ongoing pattern.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[geni]

On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our 
> movies. It
> somehow feels soviet. :-/

A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for
the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to
enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made
explosive tropes are not affected.


-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andreas Kolbe]

As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up
with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and
creepier.

---o0o---

@ Marq FJA

Eddie tends to be a little abrupt in his explanations.

The gist of it is that rape (much like sex and other similar topics) have
become difficult to moderate across such a huge wiki.

Banning rape is probably the way to go, at least given the current
situation and as a temporary solution, but the only real way to deal with
the underlying problem is to implement better rules, enlarge the mod team,
and have stricter moderation.

There are unfortunately very creepy users around the wiki, but give it half
a year or more of harsher-than-usual moderation, and the wiki will become
easier to handle in that aspect.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13337475620A51675000&page=17#410

---o0o---

These are generic problems, and Wikimedia is not free of them.



On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
> been forced to censor a
> > number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>
> The wiki-community is apparantly working on it:
>
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident
>
> TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how
> they go about solving their issues here.
>
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:

Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.



And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship 
highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly 
donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures 
notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.


We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers 
and focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for 
information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine 
is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of 
madness.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
> 
> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
> forced to censor a
> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.

The wiki-community is apparantly working on it:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident

TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how
they go about solving their issues here.


sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Kim Bruning]

Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been 
forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.

http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/

In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our 
movies. It
somehow feels soviet. :-/

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l