Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[David Gerard]

On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

>> So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
>> things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
>> debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our
>> original proposal has been requested.

> I love corporate speak. "has been requested" Er, Who requsted what?
> And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a
> need for clarification.


Passive voice is indeed problematic here. What would that sentence
look like in active voice?


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> Andreas: I think 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html
is
> one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these
examples
> to
>  now.
> 
> MZMcBride
> 

I just suggested to rename the file
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68036007&oldid=68034622].
Please discuss there.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:


> Hi MZ and all --
>
> Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more
> pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is
> currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on
> whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding
> feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter.
> We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and
> generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of
> months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the
> timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set.
>

Kicking ti into the long grass, or at least over the electoral cycle.
And it sounds like twisting the economic knife over funding structure.

Do not forget though that though the economic obstacles against
forking Wikimedia are (on paper) prohibitive, the legal ones that
guarantee forkability are iron-cast. And if you lose the community,
you are just guardians of an editable, but un-edited encyclopedic
venture. A Nupedia on wheels. I want the Wikimedia to succeed.
If there is anyone who doubts that, please raise their hand. But
I know it cannot succeed by going back on its own original ideals.

> So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
> things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
> debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our
> original proposal has been requested.

I love corporate speak. "has been requested" Er, Who requsted what?
And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a
need for clarification.

> It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical
> and social work that needs to be done around controversial content
> that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons
> search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for
> any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be
> many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.

> I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of
> the controversial content resolutions
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
> and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content),
> though much less controversial, are also quite important!

Very true.

-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Thomas Morton]

>
> If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
> French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
> woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
>
>
Uh.

So in a not insignificant part of the world that video is illegal.

Including the UK where it carries a 2 year prison sentence
for possession or distribution. I don't know of specific case law in France
but given their recent spate of obscenity laws, and the fact that Zoophilia
was outlawed in 2004, it seems likely.

In the US distributing it is often illegal to states where it is outlawed -
although no one has tested this in terms of internet distribution (at least
not to my recollection). It certainly fails the Miller Test. There are
certain countries where this will get you a death sentence.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[MZMcBride]

MZMcBride wrote:
> Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from
> you, Phoebe, and some of the other "big" voices who have commented here. And
> I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping
> ease some tensions and create better dialogue. :-)
> 
> Andreas: I think 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is
> one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to
>  now.

Sorry for double-posting, I forgot one more thing. There's been a bit of
discussion on Wikipedia Review about this topic, for anyone interested:

* http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37054

Larry Sanger also weighed in on his blog:

* http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-porn-filter-doa-and-a-proposal/

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[MZMcBride]

Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from
you, Phoebe, and some of the other "big" voices who have commented here. And
I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping
ease some tensions and create better dialogue. :-)

Andreas: I think 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is
one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to
 now.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Andreas Kolbe]

If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv

I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board
members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view:
Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and
unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response
to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"?

Andreas

2012/3/8 Juliana da Costa José 

> Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where
> I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house
> who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery
> smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with
> special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this
> people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.
>
> Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any
> of them and you must really search very intense to find this.
> I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching  and
> collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als
> "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
> thank you every day for this.
>
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe 
>
> > Juliana,
> >
> > You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
> >
> > I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just
> like
> > I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> > on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> > to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> > responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> > Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about
> adult
> > material.
> >
> > And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> > and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
> >
> > Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> > Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> > would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> > mainspace:
> >
> >
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
> >
> > So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> > problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia
> are
> > a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> > view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> > English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> > responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
> >
> > The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> > prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> > being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> > efforts:
> >
> > http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
> >
> > The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons
> and
> > English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review
> discussion
> > thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been
> jailed
> > for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> > this article:
> >
> > http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
> >
> > The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> > in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
> >
> > Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> > years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia
> Commons
> > in the ad

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Juliana da Costa José]

Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where
I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house
who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery
smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with
special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this
people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.

Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any
of them and you must really search very intense to find this.
I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching  and
collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als
"evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing
Wikipedia articles.

But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will
thank you every day for this.


Juliana


2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe 

> Juliana,
>
> You simply don't understand where I am coming from.
>
> I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
> I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
> on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
> to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
> responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
> Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
> material.
>
> And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
> and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
>
> Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
> Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
> would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
> mainspace:
>
> http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html
>
> So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
> problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
> a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
> view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
> English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
> responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.
>
> The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
> prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
> being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
> efforts:
>
> http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
>
> The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
> English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
> thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
> for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
> this article:
>
> http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
>
> The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
> in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.
>
> Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
> years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
> in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
> decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
> to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
> represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
> opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
> is a problem.
>
> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
> from moving towards the mainstream of society.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José 
>
> > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
> in
> > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons tor

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 08.03.2012 01:53, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>  wrote:


Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never
an example from your side considering other topics.



You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these
are the discussions where you choose to hang out.
This is very unconvincing, because it's very easy to keep track on steps 
of other users. ;-)




He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence

however.



The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld
the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M
And of course there is not a single clue why it happend or what he did 
wrong. That's like putting someone into the jail while holding a trial 
excluded from the public, while the prosecutor and judge are the same 
person(s). Reminds me on the middle age.


You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea,
which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one
developer commenting on your proposal at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons

It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia
problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now.
I don't see it as solving a problem. I see it as way to improve Commons 
while not making the anti porn lobby raining down useless and stupid 
deletion requests on Commons or proposing and pushing even more idiocy 
in resolutions, like that sexuality related images have to be hidden in 
special categories and are forbidden to show up in more general 
categories, even if they contain the subject.


The most useful part of a comment I found in the search discussion on 
Commons was:


Category:Photographs of non-kosher mammals standing on the hind legs 
with the visible genitalia made in Germany with a digital camera during 
Rammadon at night

http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating

Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is
not getting the attention it deserves.

Andreas
I don't complain. I made a proposal. Someone might pick it up and make 
something out of it. If no one does, then i won't cry. But if someone 
comes up with such stupid tagging, rating or hiding approaches and 
implements it, then I will leave the project alone, since it would be 
already dead at this point.


nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kat Walsh  wrote:

> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.

"definetely more interesting things to talk about"? Like how to arrange the
deckchairs maybe?

>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).

It is extremely hard not to get sarcastic here. So I will just say nothing.

> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.

If you really think so. I am genuinely dissapointed. I will not elaborate
on that in a public forum.

> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?

With the composition of tne board very out of touch of with
the community, it is very hard not to to dismiss this as a pure
irrelevance.

> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.

This bit I understand wholly. But there is that awkward bit that you are
not just a part of it, but a *trustee*. You are not elected there to be a
part of a job-mill. You are out there to fight the good fight for the rest
of us.The one thing that you never should have held compromisable
is not any single issue or multipe issues you would not compromise
over but that you there not representing your values, but your
understanding of ours, the community. Those are the standards
you should judge yourself by, as should others.

>
> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.

I am sorry but I think I can't let you off quite this easily. In what
universe was it a "viable starting position"? It, and all ideas
remotely like it never got any traction before. Maybe if you
think "We got nowhere before on this, we can only do better."

As to being surprised by searches. Talk to google image search.
Do you think they have mastered the art?

> So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
> least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
> part, nor on Phoebe's.

I have to say I agree. Perfectly consistent.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against
> sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw never
> an example from your side considering other topics.
>


You not seeing it doesn't mean it ain't happening. :) It's just that these
are the discussions where you choose to hang out.



> He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no evidence
>> however.
>
>

The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has looked into it and upheld
the block – re-issued it in fact, under its own authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beta_M



> And the raging, biting and attacking continues, while constructing
>> arguments from single examples. Great job as usual. Sorry, but your efforts
>> piss me off and i see nothing good coming out of it. In a recent discussion
>> i thought that you would be able to have a little bit of insight, but i was
>> terribly wrong and I'm ashamed of you and your words.
>
>

You were simply gratified that I thought you had come up with a great idea,
which you have. :) You know what annoys me? That we still have not had one
developer commenting on your proposal at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons

It's a good proposal, and would go some way towards alleviating a Wikimedia
problem that's been discussed on the Internet for half a year now.

http://tch516087.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating

Perhaps you would like to complain, along with me, that your proposal is
not getting the attention it deserves.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 07.03.2012 23:41, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:

Juliana,

You simply don't understand where I am coming from.

I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
material.
Sorry to interrupt you. But as i can see, you constantly rage against 
sexuality in any form. I came to this little conclusion because i saw 
never an example from your side considering other topics. What i see is 
the constant lobbying for a "safepedia", abusing children and crying 
mothers as the main argument, while praising flickr, youtube and co. as 
the ideal that we all should follow. Im absolutely not convinced that 
this is the right way for knowledge. Not a single website that has this 
kind of "service" is dedicated to spread education or knowledge. It's 
quite the opposite.

And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.
I hope that they have the balls to follow the good examples. What are 
good examples?
* Equal treatment of content and readers (including children), as most 
libraries in the world do.
* The internet. A place for the free mind and everyone that wants to 
share knowledge and to spread the word.

* Diversity in viewpoints, but acting with respect and tolerance.


Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
mainspace:

http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html

So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.

The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
efforts:

http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
this article:

http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
He said himself that he isn't the same person, while Geni has no 
evidence however. To me it looks like a witch hunt and i would create 
and give you a barnstar for that. The reason this barnstar (hot n sexy) 
exists is also very simple. It exists because people like you only rage 
against sexual topics and that again, again, again, zZzZz, again and 
again. It is boring and a nuisance for the active community that wants 
to curate Commons.

The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.

Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
is a problem.

WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in G

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Thomas Morton]

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton  wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
>>> Wikipedia is.
>
>> The answer being; Not much at all.
>
>
> We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
> assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
> sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
> asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
> insufficient fame.

We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is
tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are
majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream.

We are progressive, but that is another matter.

All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader.

Which has been my consistent criticism of this debacle.

Tom

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[David Gerard]

On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard  wrote:

>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
>> Wikipedia is.

> The answer being; Not much at all.


We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
insufficient fame.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Thomas Morton]

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
>> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
>> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
>> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
>> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
>> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
>> from moving towards the mainstream of society.
>
>
> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
> Wikipedia is.
>

The answer being; Not much at all.

Tom

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[David Gerard]

On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
> the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
> Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
> from moving towards the mainstream of society.


I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
Wikipedia is.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Andreas Kolbe]

Juliana,

You simply don't understand where I am coming from.

I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like
I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material
on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable
to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material
responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter.
Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult
material.

And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation
Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator,
and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists.

Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German
Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia
would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in
mainspace:

http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html

So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no
problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are
a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my
view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and
English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material
responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate.

The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators
prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or
being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their
efforts:

http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and
English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion
thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed
for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in
this article:

http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283

The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request
in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee.

Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight
years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons
in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who
decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host
to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he
represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively
opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That
is a problem.

WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And
the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German
Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it
from moving towards the mainstream of society.

Andreas



2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José 

> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
>
> Juliana
>
>
> 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe 
>
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that
> > the
> > > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a
> great
> > > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from.
> Take a
> > > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing
> > to
> > > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> > Wikipedia
> > > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people
> > > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short
> time
> > > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we
> are a

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Delirium]

On 3/7/12 6:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José wrote:

so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?

I don't think anyone's proposing that the information should be removed 
from articles; just that there should be some tools available in 
people's account settings.


I personally would be happy to turn off images in medicine-related 
articles by default for my own browsing, because they aren't greatly 
informative most of the time, and just pointless gore--- if, for 
example, I'm reading about skin diseases, "another generic open sore 
photo" doesn't add a lot of content to my reading. Of course, I would 
like photos available for inspection when I do need them.


-Mark


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?

[teun spaans]

* They have to do lots of original research; it is impossible
 to follow development of the railway infrastructure and
 operations using only high quality published sources;

* They got bitten a bit by the "notability" discussions in their
 field; they want to document every track, every junction
 and every locomotive and they are tired of discussing
 how "notable" a particular piece of railway equipment
 really is.


Notability discussion seem to spring up on every wiki, and often seem to
lead to very heated discussions. The question of notability is also somehow
tied to reliable published sources. I remember a discussion where an
article on a game with >20 milllion players was removed because of lack of
appropriate sources.

Imho it is good that we do have rules on notability - we dont want to have
every wikipedian describe his entire family - but every rule seems to have
its quirks.

On the dutch wiki i recently encountered a discussion on notability of
Tolkien articles. Fans are describing every corner of the Tolkien world,
but in this discussion the notability of beetle species, plant species and
chess openings was also raised. Personally I don't mind too much about
notability - if the stuff seems relevant enough for a specialized paper
encyclopedia, i feel it's worth including it in a wikipedia.

''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free
access to the sum of all human knowledge''

I wish you health and happiness
Teun Spaans
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Marc Riddell]

on 3/7/12 12:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José at
julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com wrote:

> Hi Phoebe,
> 
> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
> 
> Best
> 
> Juliana

>> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José :
>>> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
>> in
>>> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
>>> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
>> bodies
>>> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
>>> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
>>> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

2012/3/7 phoebe ayers 
>> 
>> Hey Juliana,
>> 
>> As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
>> "controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
>> board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
>> frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.
>> 
>> best,
>> -- phoebe
>> 
Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which
every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That
is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you
may not know about Wikipedia")

Should this read, "...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial
content that may upset some people."

Are you concerned about the Project's image or its content?

All knowledge - or none.

Marc Riddell

I will be intelligent enough to know that little can be known; inquisitive
enough never to stop learning, and perceptive enough to understand that all
things and all events contain infinite possibilities. - MR


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia France position on fundraising

[Chris Keating]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Arne Klempert wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
> > Please find on Wikimedia France position regarding chapter fundraising in
> > France in the coming years.
> >
>

Wikimedia UK's response to the same set of questions is now on Meta, here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Questions_for_Wikimedia_UK

Regards,

Chris Keating, Wikimedia UK Board
(User:The Land)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[David Gerard]

2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José :

> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?


Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of
other people feeling they have a right to know things in general.
Remember that (a) the right to know things in general does not come
for free - it's a hard-won privilege - and that (b) when someone wants
to suppress others' knowledge of things like inconvenient history[1],
porn has historically been a handy stalking horse.[2]

But of course, anyone who says this is obviously just a troll and troublemaker.


- d.

[1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
[2] e.g. 
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90367/music-industry-uses-net-neutrality-to-equate-p2p-with-child-porn/

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Juliana da Costa José]

Hi Phoebe,

so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?

Best

Juliana


2012/3/7 phoebe ayers 

> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José :
> > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years
> in
> > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn
> bodies
> > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".
>
> Hey Juliana,
>
> As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
> "controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
> board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
> frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.
>
> best,
> -- phoebe
>
> ___
> 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] Controversial content software status

[phoebe ayers]

2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José :
> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

Hey Juliana,

As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under
"controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the
board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly
frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue.

best,
-- phoebe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Juliana da Costa José]

Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years in
Wikipedia and never saw this pictures.
For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn bodies
and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting
"spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some
mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content".

Juliana


2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe 

> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that
> the
> > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great
> > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a
> > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing
> to
> > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since
> Wikipedia
> > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people
> > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time
> > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a
> > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument.
>
>
>
> The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
> becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in
> the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
> masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than
> other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
> appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and
> Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give
> them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
> approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
> might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
> interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)
>
> By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn
> site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
> active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki
> of his own, where he says about himself,
>
> *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
> that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am
> all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
> looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy
> seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
> porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from
> capitalist fuckers."*
>
> There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
> Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex
> life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
> mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort
> for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am
> not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York
> Times readership would approve?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335
>
> Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a
> nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce
> the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like
> "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite
> effect:
>
>   - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content
>   pages  are adult media files.
>   - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
> (female)<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
>   followed by Category:Vulva<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
>and Category:Female
> genitalia
>   .
>   - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
>   times a day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg
> >,
>   compared to roughly 1 view a
> day
>or less than one view a
> day<
> http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
> for
>   actual images of toothbrushes.
>   - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a
>   toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of
>   Category:Toothbrushes<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
>   the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is
> 

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[WereSpielChequers]

> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:30:27 -0500
> From: Kat Walsh 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> >>
>
> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.
>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).
>
> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.
>
> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?
>
> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.
>
> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.
>
> So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
> least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
> part, nor on Phoebe's.
>
> -Kat
>
>
Hi Kat, that's very refreshing to hear, though perhaps if it had come
sooner there would have been less bad blood and the issue would be less
significant in the current chapter elections.

I was in the minority that thought it would be good to offer some sort of
image filter to our readers, I even designed one that would avoid many of
the problems of the Foundation proposal
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming/personal_private_filters

I'm also quite supportive both of the principle of Least Astonishment
(POLA) and also of fixing our search routines so that sexual images that
also involve cucumbers etc don't automatically jump to the top of searches
for cucumbers because of the popularity of sexual images. But POLA itself
is something that we need to carefully define. I'm aware of one recent
incident where an editor got qite a bit of hassle because an image that he
used to have on his webpage was subsequently replaced by an image that I
would describe as Not Safe For Home, let alone Not Safe For Work. I'd
consider that a POLA breach, but presumably the person who replaced a
cropped image of someone's upper body with an uncropped image would just
have thought they were improving an image.

But even t

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kat Walsh  wrote:
...

> Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
> to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
> the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.
>
> I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
> voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
> that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
> compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
> were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
> it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
> content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
> on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).
>
> We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
> true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
> be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
> we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
> agreement on.
>
> Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
> not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
> majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
> unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
> group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
> opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
> broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
> the best decision?
>
> I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
> things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
> solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
> one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
> to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
> something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
> and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
> their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
> turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
> the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
> the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
> progress.

Yes, this. All of this. Thanks, Kat; you are always more eloquent than I am :)

As a board we've talked a lot about the most responsible way to
comment as a community member vs as part of this consensus-driven,
corporate body we call the board. We've talked about it because it's a
real concern for many of us -- the dilemma hits you pretty much from
day one, especially in our culture of community members talking about
everything. Ideally, of course, you do agree with board decisions and
how they're being carried out, but even in that case it's hard -- is
someone speaking as themselves or for the board if they express
support?

And truth be told you never get taken "as an individual" once you join
-- your opinions are always taken as "those of a board member",
whether you want them to be or not, and are tossed around politically
in consequence; and you are responsible for what the WMF does whether
you agree particularly with any individual action (or even know about
them). If you say something critical, are those opinions going to get
held against the WMF, or make someone's work more difficult, or make
the work of the board more difficult, or somehow shut down community
discussion? Is it safe to express an opinion if you're really not sure
what the right thing to do is, or will exploring a misguided approach
be held against you forever? All of those are questions that we
struggle with in every conversation (but especially in really
contentious discussions), which goes some way towards answering
David's original question.


> So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
> to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
> principles of free access to information that we value.
>
> But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
> to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
> more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
> viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
> get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
> to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
> way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
> what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
> out of the current approach.

Agreed.

-- Phoebe

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

[Foundation-l] Monthly report chapter germany

[Phillip Wilke]

Hello everybody,

starting from now the german chapter report february is available.You'll
find it via meta wiki:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Deutschland

Sorry for bothering you to do another klick to reach the report. It's to
extensive to paste it in the mailbox.

Bests
Phillip Wilke (WMDE)




-- 

Phillip Wilke

Projektassistent

-
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Eisenacher Straße 2
10777 Berlin

Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

 Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird.
Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition! http://wikipedia.de 

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 09:10:17 +, geni  wrote:
> On 7 March 2012 07:23, Amir E. Aharoni 
> wrote:
>> I'm taking a hint from Clay Shirky's books here: What most people
>> would consider high quality published sources - in this case, by
>> railway companies, governments, standards institutions or engineering
>> colleges - simply don't have the capacity to go into that much detail.
>> The Polish (Russian, Israeli, American, Indian) volunteer railway
>> geeks do have this capacity, and quite possibly the quality of the job
>> that they can do is just as good as that of the above institutions.
>>
> 
> I don't know about the polish rail geeks but the british ones have
> been nice enough to spend the last few decades churning out book after
> book (along with journals and magazines) that qualify as reliable
> sources.

I was about to reply the same. The problem with a wiki is that (unless it
is premoderated) noone can guarantee the quality. Even if the wiki founders
are qualified geeks who are able to distinguish on a short notice what is
correct and what is not, if they are monitoring quality in real time, they
must be able to remove wrong statements relatively quickly, but only if the
wiki is small enough. This is actually something we all know about -
several years ago, we could still ensure there is nothing wrong in
Wikipedia by monitoring new edits, now even monitoring new pages becomes a
challenge. (And here we could start again talking about flagged revisions
and what they are good to - but I will better not divert the original
topic). 

The way out as I see it is (possibly in addition to wiki) to publish an
online journal or maintain a website, which would guarantee that everything
in there is quality stamped (may be as Amir suggests one could formally
asked an authoritative institution to do it). I know an example of a
Russian narrow-gauge railways geek, who is basically recognized as someone
who knows everything about narrow-gauge railways in former Soviet Union. He
sometimes publishes books (which he funds himself, so strictly speaking
they would not qualify as an authoritative source), and he maintains a
website which is again a self-published source, but since often his books
and his website are the only available information on the subject, they are
widely cited in Russian Wikipedia articles, and also I sited him several
times in English Wikipedia. Of course someone can always show up, remove
these references and require that other references have been added (and
then PROD the articles), but fortunately this did not occur so far. If this
occurs my motivation to participate would indeed decrease (though not be
completely killed at this point). 

On the other hand, if we let this go for railways, then next we will have
the fantasy, computer games, and anime fans at our doors, asking to
recognize fanfic and such as sources, and I am afraid this may be like
opening the Pandora box. Whereas I am pretty sure what I am doing about
railways is correct, I would not know how to respond to the fantasy fiction
fans.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?

[geni]

On 7 March 2012 07:23, Amir E. Aharoni  wrote:
> I'm taking a hint from Clay Shirky's books here: What most people
> would consider high quality published sources - in this case, by
> railway companies, governments, standards institutions or engineering
> colleges - simply don't have the capacity to go into that much detail.
> The Polish (Russian, Israeli, American, Indian) volunteer railway
> geeks do have this capacity, and quite possibly the quality of the job
> that they can do is just as good as that of the above institutions.
>

I don't know about the polish rail geeks but the british ones have
been nice enough to spend the last few decades churning out book after
book (along with journals and magazines) that qualify as reliable
sources.


-- 
geni

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