Privatemusings, your video is really not complete without a screenshot of this list, with you reading down the Top 25, slowly and deliberately...

that's a great link, Greg... the 2nd draft (with extra moral panic!) might get done this morning (next 5 hours or so) - the foundation thread is interesting reading, with good points being made by Robert and Nathan - if I get something together, I'll probably respond everywhere after that :-)

Actually, correction Greg: keep reading down the Top 100.

over 200 views in a couple of days!

dunno if that's good or bad on reflection, but the next one had to wait this morning for coffee and profit. Now it's a choice between editing porn clips, and a swim in the ocean followed by a beer.....

sad thing is, the porn clips might just edge it!

It seems so obvious to me that there ought to be a system to collect model releases and assertions/proofs of being not underage. It doesn't have to be air tight, but it ought to be at least as good as what we use for collecting copyright. Or better, since we're dealing with actual people here who can be harmed.

Bravo, PM, for bringing this up again.

Here is a rough draft of the form letter we should use. As I said before, I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia or its legal status as a non-profit organization, so please add more details.

Dear [Congressman, Senator, MP,] [Name],
I am writing to you today regarding a serious threat to child safety on the website www.wikipedia.com. Wikipedia is an extremely popular source of information for people of all ages, including children, yet the site contains a large number of explicit images with no safeguards to ensure children do not access them. For instance, a young girl searching for information about ear piercings may stumble across the Wikipedia page for clitoral piercings, which is linked to the general “piercings” page and contains a graphic image of a woman’s vagina. Not only are these images easy to access with no warning that the page contains explicit imagery, but many of the sexually explicit pictures on Wikipedia are submitted by Wikipedia editors with no verification of the editor’s age, thus there may in fact be child pornography on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia receives tax dollars, I feel that they should be held to a higher standard and should be required to do more to protect children.
[Insert evidence here]

Your constituent,
[your name here]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris_piercing

I'd change a few things - it does not receive tax dollars (something of an Americanism anyhow), it receives tax relief due to its charitable status.

It needs to explain that there is a governing organisation - WMF - to which these issues have been highlighted, but they hide behind American Government legislation to claim that they are not at fault.

There is a better list of articles - I think the fact that an article on charity donation bangles spends so much time on sex games is far more interesting (and is easier for the receiver to deal with). The point is to say that it is not just about explicit pictures, but explicit text interlaced through the whole article - it simply is not possible to know on selecting a page whether you are going to be deluged with the thoughts of some editor's view of the subject in, ahem, popular culture.

I thought PM's video was really powerful, but needs some very careful wording before I could put it forward to my MP who I meet on occasion - and who is likely to be a cabinet member from May, assuming the Conservatives come to power. In the UK, that is better directed at the organisation who had their skulls danced on, they will be quite up for a bit of revenge. I think on that point, in the UK we need to tread carefully as I believe it is illegal to have pornographic images that appear to be of children, regardless of whether they are or not.

Oh, and PM, I'd also add in some dubious Manga examples, as I think that shows the subtle erosion that can occur even if actual images were dealt with.

Oops.

yeah... it's 'en.wikipedia.org' (for the english wikipedia) - in the spirit of all being on the same side etc. - I think this is a valuable first draft, but could be improved - maybe we should head over to wikipediareview or something to work it up into better shape? You up for that, white knight? If so, you, I, or anyone can copy it over and we can get going :-)


ps. next vid. will have to wait (as will the swim).... beer won yesterday afternoon.

or

"Yo!
You read Wikipedia? You read? You a Commie or summat? Uh, you read comix? Yay, canz uz biz Prezident!!
Hey, I'm too stooopid (I'd uv voted for you, if I had voted) to no what my kids are doing. Stop them! Oh, Wikipedia...? Right... Uh... Right, cos my kids are looking at nudie stuff on WP an thems saying its like cool cos its an ensigh...kloe... pedia (hey, thats like that word for perverts who fuck kids, YEAH, goddam)... and thems are stopping me downloading porn, and drinking beer, and shooting shit with semi automatic weapons of personal freedom.
I dunno why I pay minimal tax dollars if you aint going to sort out shit what like I am supposed to but I have to eat more hamburgers to give a shit. Don't fucking tell me to watch what my kids are doing, I pay you to do that - and then complain that you are commies and destroying my deemokracyyy.
Regards, and who the fuck are you anyway? - I never voted for no commie reading bigwig, or nobody either (etc.)"

(mods: Tarpit this for not being funny, if you want. Should I care?) Point is, if there are to be limits on the exposure of young persons then the responsibility lies outside WP. When there is the desire for parents to take the responsibility that is legally there to guide their children in what they may view on the web, then WP may instigate some access coding. If no-one is prepared to log their kids ip or log-in as a non-adult, then flagging content as unsuitable for unsupervised minors (and catting same) will mean that more rather than less "indelicate" content will be accessed by minors - since a flag then becomes a signpost.

Whilst I am at it - cos I know I'm going to get shit for this - I wouldn't trust the general public to determine what is indelicate; prejudice and stupidity being what it is. I should think that an image of two (fully clothed and not in a bedroom) men kissing is likely to be regarded as more "inappropriate" than depictions/examples of rape. I personally don't think that rape (which is a crime of violence) needs illustrating, because mechanically it differs little from sex - it is the mindset and violation of privacy and respect that makes it an assault - wheras an image showing men kissing examples both tolerance and the breadth of love... I know enough to realise that I could not be an arbiter of what is adult and what is not, but I am in the process of bringing up children and I am not going to be looking to some website to make decisions that is my responsibility. That is my job.

well it wasn't a bad effort :-)



I actually largely agree with you about responsibility lying with the parents - but I also feel that the WMF could help, and has a responsibility to help. Would you agree that the WMF is rather an outlier in terms of the way it treats this material? Flickr, google images, and even the many free porn sites generally require a 'click to say you're 18' screen of some sort - which (as 'House MD' said in one ep. even a 17 year old could figure out) doesn't actually prevent access, but does make it clear that the material isn't intended to be viewed, and in many (most?) folks' view isn't suitable for access for a minor.

The WMF also is attractive to children (this could be a good thing, with responsible governance!) - but that heightens its responsibility in my view to have sensible systems in place.

Your argument echoes many of the points made in the various discussions around the place, but it's reckless because it firmly closes the door on further discussion - which is a shame. The way forward probably starts if it's possible to acknowledge that the material on commons should or could be better handled - could you agree with this?

You've managed it, though.

Speaking of managed, better at Commons? In what way? Restriction of access? Who for? What premise? Who sets the limits? There is a lot of well argued reasoning at WR that there is a significant percentage of WP editors (and admins) that do not display the necessary maturity or mental competence (or fairmindedness) to make decisions regarding other contributors ability to edit the site. So who are these people who are going to "grade" thousands of images? "Wikipedians"? Not, for the reasons I have just given. Outsiders? On what basis do they judge, if they are not interested in the concept of an open editing environment encyclopedia enough to have contributed?

The other question is, what is inappropriate? For what age? Where do we draw the line and say, "This image destroys your - quite possibly inaccurate and maintained by fantasy from all sections of society - innocent world view" and then, "This image examples a world that you will live in, and is here to educate you and widen your expectations - for better and for worse - of the society into which you will become a contributing and vital part." Your and mine 10 year old child* is likely to view pierced and bejewelled genitalia long before they are allowed into the business end of a warplane, yet there is little regard to restricting access to information regarding weapons of war; it is something I find very hard to express my disturbance with - the ease by which death and mutilation subjects are allowed distribution, yet aspects of sexual love are condemned as immoral. If we are going to to restrict the viewing of cocks and pussy, and variations, why not the arsenals of death and oppression? My lasting point is that WP should not place arbitrary restrictions on material simply because it is unable to take a role that society itself has not encompassed, not without leading to censorship of its "adult" membership.

*I am getting tired of living the lie - the truth will out, you know?

Overdone. You've either had one too many bong hits, or one too few.

You forget that in America the 6:00 news can broadcast video footage of an alleged decapitation but not of a wardrobe malfunction.

Reminds one of Wikipedia, which feels it can post photos of the raped and mutilated Chinese women of Nanking, but blocked a user who wanted to be called Nipples37 on grounds that it would have been distracting.

Cue Colonel Kurtz' best line from Apocalypse Now: "They drop fire on people but they won't let them write 'fuck' on their airplanes, because it is obscene..."

Yeah ... but we are not talking about "kissing", lovely, we are talking about graphic anal sex, bolted testicles, spurting ejaculations and so on.

You are right, the discussion of what is reasonable and acceptable does lie with society and elsewhere.

You need to keep a focus on what the greater intention is and use the child protection not just as a means to an end in itself, that is to protect children, by as a device to highlight all the other irresponsibilities, unaccountabilities and faults within the system.

strict age limitations ...
as strong child protection as any educational institute or library would have ...
as rigorous sexual codes as any legitimate 501 c or business would have (no hard core porn on the walls) ...
editing accounts tied to identifiable individuals.

Your tone is very good ... I like the idea of reading out the list of top page views.

You can safely exclude meaningless pages such as "main page" (whatever the language) without damaging your credibility. "tetas japon", unsuprising enough, is another breast shot.


What do you call that? What is the technical term for it? Some kind of 'cognitive dissonance' ... OK ... but there must be a proper term for it.

The problem seems to be with 'too small minds'. A small mind can recognise the word "nipple" and react to it as a "bad" word (and I think in that case, it was a kid admin that knee jerked over it), but they cannot conceive of the enormity of something like a mutilated rape victim (if that is what it was).

Then you have to add in the other typical racial equations, as in

it [is/used to be] OK to show naked African breasts but not naked White breasts
it is OK to show raped Asians but not raped Caucasians
it is OK to show the victims of Japan but not the victims of the USA
it is OK to show pictures of 60 year rape victims but not recent rape victims (e.g. 12 year old raped by Marine in Okinawa)

Being rudderless, captainless and without any real editorial policy or board, we end up with this skewed and corrupt vessel ...

Hey, yeah, let's have a graphic picture of a mutilated woman on EVERY war topic so everyone can be equal because sure as hell it is verifiable. Ha ... just try it.

All it is, and I have always argued this, is atrocity pornography. And mainly cheap, politically motivated atrocity pornography at that.

Those are good points, even if motivated by your own ubber nationalism. I believe the best editorial choice for pic in that article would have been a composed and dignified survivor testifying before some tribunal, similar in spirit to this one, which in a rare display of good judgment is found in the WP "War Rape" article. That pic at least sustains the dignity of the victim.

None. Never did, really. Speed was my thing - these days, however, if I want to stay up all night all I have to do is overwork my bladder.

note to self - another worrying aspect of this case is that the image isn't actually deleted - it's still available (without any record of viewing to my knowledge except an un-monitored server log) to anyone with oversight 'ops' - I believe this may still be illegal.

ps. less heard - did you see my reply to you - I wondered how you might respond? :-)

I am not aware of you posting since mine (#62) above on this topic - is it in a different venue (or website...?)

I believe so.

On a similar note (and, rather ironically, using Wikipedia for the details), Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 has made the following illegal in the UK (as on January 26 2009):



(b) is wide-ranging.

Edit: Furthermore, I may be coming at this from a slightly different angle. While I consider myself conservative (both small and big "c" for those keeping count), I have no problem with pornography per se and would probably go so far as saying that if it is decided "Facial (sexual act)" is worthy on an article on Wikipedia, there are arguments to have a photograph with it.

I'd even find an argument that I'd rather adolescents could find porn on-line (it's not difficult!) than have to go to seedy newsagents and whatever. Probably has more to do with me being annoyed that it wasn't so easy when I was a teenager, though!

BUT...and this is the big "but"....my issue is with there being no age-verification when images are submitted, combined with the "oh, it was on Flickr so it must be fine" attitude. As I posted to Jimbo recently:



That's what disturbs me the most.

As I told you, I am not an nationalists, Assbead, and certain not a Japanese nationalist. I am not Japanese. So bury this one for the last time ... I stepped into the middle of fight between two groups of "uber nationalists" fighting ghosts;

whack job Koreans, like Caspian blue, and
idiotic, puffed up, bull-neck Yankee patri-urtz

in an attempt to temper their politics and create encyclopediac content.

I found it to be impossible. In doing so, I had my other negative experiences of the Wikipedia confirmed ... I also found the Japanese editors to be the least of any problem by a long way. Not only did I not find them to be a problem ... I did not find any at all.

The Yanks and Koreas are shooting bullets fighting ghosts beating on the drums of their own racism. Racism which motivates and defends current political agendas. It has nothing to do with encyclopediac knowledge or the women themselves. The Wikipedia is so full of racism, it is blind to it..

So, back on topic, thank you ... the question is, should there be child protection limitations placed on the hard core amateur pornography ... AND the politically motivated atrocity pornography?

As for the history of Comfort Women and military rape in Asia, the Japanese stopped absolutely in 1945 ... then the Americans and Korean took over for the next 20 to 30 odd years with over 1 million women in Korea alone being debased by it. So who is there to point fingers at anyone?

And, yes, historically the Korean government colluding prostitution rackets did called their victims "Comfort Women" right up into the 70s, victims is all the same way they prior to 1945 ... but try getting that FACT past the Censors of the Patriot Guard.

Mike Godwin, the putative legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation and all around schmuck, would rather not get involved with the immorality or illegality of children accessing, administrating or producing porn, or the issue of the Foundation hosting illegal content such as child pornography, unless he's contacted by the US Department of Justice. He prefers to let an 18 year old Australian contractor decide what's right.

Mike Godwin -


18 year old Australian contractor -

Shows a complete lack of understand of the process of investigating and building a criminal case. Prosecuting authorities would never contact an attorney about concerns while conducting an investigation of his client. If they get a warrant to search the contents of the servers there is no prior notice. The first call you get as a courtesy is to bring your client in for arraignment without an arrest, and then only if flight risk is low.

The WikiMedia Foundation will continue to maintain the pretense that it's "Just A Phone Company", that its role is solely that of Charitable Provider Of Backyard Fences for Da Community to gossip or spit or dump toxic waste or fire nucular missiles over or whatever Da Community Feels Like Doing.

The WMF motto will ever be —



Eventually the excesses of Da Community will result in new laws being written, and Wikipediots will have succeeded in taking a good measure of our onetime freedoms down the toilet with them.

Jon

Not that surprising, really. From everything I have read about him, I have never once seen any indication that Godwin has ever tried a case, although he evidently has co-written a few appellate briefs in civil cases.

Methinks you compare apples to oranges. You're claiming these were secret slave women, and the Amercian military KNEW this?

Bullshit.

What a tosser ... What it means is, "we are going to keep doing fuck all about all this until we are sued, arrested ... or the kids at WR give up", with a calculation as to the legal risk of it ... probably fairly low and easily defended. Nothing to do with ethics or morality or encyclopediac creation. I guess is the Foundation is also fairly smug and confident in relying on all the unpaid wiki-serfs to sweep the filth under the carpet ... and for the likes of us here to helpfully flag it up for them.

So, probably the best thing to do is shut up about it all ... just keep logging and documenting it ... and do one's best to engineer a situation where either through social or legal intervention, they have to do something about it. I don't see anything else having any effect on the culture.

Not impossible, I would say ... just keep chat off line so Alison wont go and tidy it up for them.

We have cross swords about this before Milton. You are an ignorant bigot parading under the guise of patriotic goodness, rolling out all the same old tired homilies, and assuming I am some kind of folk devil that fits in neatly into binary grasp of reality. Life is more complex. The propaganda is not true.

You cannot even keep your racist bigotry out of the way when it comes to discussion a serious and CURRENT event such as child protection TODAY, their access to and administration of hard core amateur pornography on the Pee-dia.

Pathetic ... digging up corpses 60 years dead to make nationalist propaganda to traumatise children with ... just like on the Pornopedia.

What was I thinking about? Oh, what about the abduction, serial rape and murder of Vietnamese women by the ROKMC whilst they acted as Uncle Sam's cheap and vicious mercenaries for which the South Korean government, has never apologized about, refuses to acknowledge and has never compensation the Vietnamese for. Does that really that sound like a different bitter fruit to anyone else? Perhaps now I am a Vietnamese nationalist too.

(Anyone who knows half of anything about history of the area, and wants a good laugh, have a read of the Wiki version of the ROKMC history and the Korean General's war whoring for America).

Business as usual for the region ... and, as usual, impossible to discuss on the Porno-pedia because of doughballs like this.

Keep on topic ... or keep off the thread will you?

OK ..... 'Oral sex' definition prompts dictionary ban in US schools.

I suspect the good parents of southern California schools have not seen the Pornopedia yet but might be pointed in the right direct for an eyeful.

Apparently, a parent complaining about a child reading the definition for "oral sex" in the Merriam Webster's 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has had it pulled from shelves over fears that the "sexually graphic" entry is "just not age appropriate".

A panel is now reviewing whether the ban will be made permanent.

:facepalm:

@ any of my fellow Americans who might read this thread, please remember this story next time you have the [forrest-]gumption to ask why none of the other industrialized countries will ever stop ridiculing us.

</public_service_announcement>

It does march on.

Review the recent contribution history of Owner1 or Max Rebo Band. Don't click on anything with hodensack in the name if you are even a little squeamish.

And so it goes.

Wikifiddlers will be happy to learn that Donkey punch (T-H-L-K-D) * now has an animated graphic to illustrate an apocryphal and potentially lethal sexual practice supposedly performed during anal sex. Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, etc, you should all welcome Flyingfeck for his altruistic donation of his "original" artwork.

* webcite

Max Rebo Band is still grabbing images from Flickr, several of them at least once a week,
and putting them on Commons. Lately, almost all of them have been BDSM.

The image owners never seem to complain or object. All I see is this. (Whiny little bitch.)

Sometimes I wonder if the inclusionist/deletionist hostility will eventually destroy Wikipedia. There appears
to be maniac extremists on both sides, equally obsessed with their mutually-exclusive "goals".

Actually Max Rebo Band wants to "vanish", and asked 32X to remove his name from the revision history of his uploads. 32X hasn't made a lot of progress yet.

I won't forget you Max, and your obsession with tit torture, and neither will Webcite.

Let us clear here ... does Max 'Mr Tit Torture' Rebo want to vanish or does just he want his name taken off the images so that the images to remain.

I think it is the later. I think it is a ploy to ensure the images are not deleted by making them harder to find.

Max Rebo Band has had his userpage deleted on Commons, per "right to vanish", although he has continued editing. He has also requested that his user page be oversighted, his uploads be disassociated from his account and when that is done, he be "banned". Apparently Commons admins see nothing unusual in this:

I don't follow that. If he grabs an image and puts it on Commons, either it stays there and he scarcely needs to keep reposting it every week, or it gets deleted, and he'll be blocked if he keeps re-posting it.

Why should they? If they've granted a CC license he's quite entitled to do it. They may well be delighted to see their "works of art" get wider exposure. If they don't want the photos to go any further, they'll have "all rights reserved" and the photos would probably get deleted from commons as copyvios.

Problem is that most of the porn on flickr is a copyvio. Check whether any of the accounts are still active on flickr 6 months afterwards, most will have been deleted for copyvio. The uploaders have an attitude that anything they've been sent via email, or found on the web is public domain and as flickr doesn't allow a PD designation they use CC-BY-SA, the filenames will all be random numbers and letters or they'll be stuff copied from other flickr accounts. The majority of genuine adult content uploaders are using ARR.

An adult flickr account with just a handful of images is usually a copyvio, as is one with a succession of different participants, few get to photograph 20 different (wo)men with cum over their faces, or engaging in anal sex. Changes in lighting and style are also dead giveaways. As are images in different resolutions ie some 400px, 640px, 800px, and others 1024px.

As we all know, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on several previous Open Mike Nights.

John Vandenberg nominated that animation for deletion yesterday.

The Commonists – mattbuck, Saibo & Co. – argue of course that Commons is not censored, and that historic use of the file in Wikipedia projects makes it "clearly" educational.

Also on Jimbo's talk.

The Donkey punch article, with the animation in it, has been viewed nearly 400,000 times these past 30 days, with 129,000 page views on January 17 alone. According to these figures, the Donkey punch is one of Wikipedia's most viewed articles ...