As a student of logic, I am always interested in the validity of an argument, i.e. does the conclusion follow from the premisses, regardless of whether the premisses or true or not?

A recurring argument of the porn debate on commons is as follows:

1. Wikipedia is not concerned about how many images of the statue of liberty exist (there are currently around 150).

2. Ergo, Wikipedia is not concerned about how many images of a cumshot exist. If any such image is allowable at all (and let's say at least one is allowed), there is no upper limit on the number allowed.

That argument seems invalid. But hard to say why.

Koyaanisqatsi -- Out of Balance


The reason it's hard to say why is because you cannot use mathematical logic to decide what to include in a set of rules or laws. At best you can prove that a given set of rules admits or disallows some imaginable move in a rule-driven system.

You can argue that it's imprudent to accept an arbitrary number of repetitions of some item, or that it's boring to look at an arbitrary number of the same images, but you cannot use formal logic to decide on what the upper limit should be.

Your conundrum illustrates the inherent limitations of rule-based systems. They are ill-suited to regulating or managing subjective phenomena such as desires or preferences or prudence.

A better regulatory structure would introduce an economic incentive (reward or cost structure) that tracked with supply and demand. As you know from economic theory, things are in balance when the marginal cost is adjusted so that supply equals demand.

In short, you can use mathematical logic to craft an optimum economic regulatory model, but the resultant structure will be built out of smooth mathematical functions rather than simple rules with hard limits.

Reference: Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function

This is nothing to do with mathematical logic or formal systems. I gave an argument that is in ordinary English, and which some people find persuasive. I do not find it persuasive, but I am unable to articulate precisely why.



What are you on about?

Ordinary English is too weak a language to explain what is essentially a concept in mathematical or logical reasoning.


Balance. You are addressing a problem in maintaining a balance between competing objectives and competing forces. You can use English to mention the fact that things are out of balance, but to present an argument that presents a coherent theory and practice of achieving and maintaining balance, you have to advance to mathematical methods of reasoning which word-based languages are too weak to support.

[nvm]

The argument is correct. If you allow something then there is no reason to refuse to allow something substantively identical. The question is not whether it is allowed, but whether it is necessary or desirable. I haven't looked through the images of the Statue of Liberty. My guess is that several are necessary because they bring out different aspects. Taken from different angles, long shots, close-ups, different lighting. Quite probably some could be deleted and no harm done because they're virtually identical to others but their presence does little or no harm to the project (unless they're copyvios).

Having 150 disgusting pictures of the same thing is allowed. Conceivably there is some use in having more than one of them (I won't go there). But the presence of large numbers of them is harmful to the reputation of the project even among those who might be prepared to concede that you could justify having say half a dozen of them.

I thought it was because the part of the brain which controls judgment does not control language.

Try to make a rule against wretched excess and see how far you get.

I agree. The more pictures you have of the statue, the more it looks like a reference work. the more pictures of a cumshot, the less it looks like a reference work (and more like a porn repository).

Being a reference work partly involves looking like a reference work, and therefore being treated like one. It's a bit like money. Money is only money, so long as people regard it as money.



I think you thought wrong there.

On Wikipedia your photo of the Statue of Liberty is just a few keystrokes on Photoshop away from being a cumshot pic.

Funny, but that reminds me of an article I once read that listed the best films that take place in New York. The 1968 film "Planet of the Apes" was on the list because of the statue's unlikely appearance.

1. The police are unconcerned how many tomatoes I keep in my refrigerator.
2. The police are quite interested in how many severed human heads I keep in my refrigerator.

Is it hard to see why?

In case it is, I'll elaborate to point out that there are few if any statue-of-liberty fetishists bookmarking commons categories to indulge their non-encyclopedic obsessions, or coming-of-age innocents being psychically deformed by their presence. In other words, "things" are not all equivalent, whether things in an encyclopedia or in your fridge.

OK, that was a tortured analogy, so another way: if there were 150 cumshot pics rotting away in some unseen commons category crisper drawer that was overwhelmingly used to help build the "encyclopedia", and not as a stand-alone porn warehouse (ruled by 12 year old foremen), far fewer people would perceive a problem.

You silly logic guys. Don't you see the most useful and instructive possible outcome from the facts presented in this thread?

Clearly, we need to start a Facebook-Twitter-Digg-Slashdot viral campaign to upload to Wikimedia Commons as many different photos of the Statue of Liberty as is humanly possible, until the sheer magnitude of patina copper dwarfs even the sum of cum shots on Wikimedia projects.

That's actually quite brilliant.

Not true, at least in this case (in most cases, but that is another argument).


Also not true, or at least flawed reasoning.

The problem lies not in the argument, but in the unwritten assumptions underlying the argument, some of which are incorrect, or at least debatable. Here goes:

1. There is one Statue of Liberty;
2. The Statue of Liberty is a legitimate subject of both general interest and (some) scholarly study (historical, artistic, engineering, etc);
3. Multiple photographs feature the statue from different angles, in different environmental conditions, with different backgrounds, and (perhaps) with varying degrees of artistic merit or overall quality;
4. The collection of photographs contain more information than a single photo -- even an excellent one -- would (your could combine them to make a wireframe model, or a historical photo can show them in the context of the WTC, which no longer exists, etc);
5. Ergo, the collection of photos is a (somewhat) valuable addition to an online resource such as Wikipedia.

On the other hand, regarding cumshots and other photos of sexual acts:

1. There are an arbitrarily large numbers of individuals and sex acts they can perform, and an even larger number of permutations of the two;
2. While human reproduction, sexuality, and even deviant sexuality are legitimate fields of study, the importance of essentially pornographic depictions of sexuality is of, at best, limited education and academic value;
3. Even within a small domain of value, multiple representation of sex acts involving different people do not in any way further elucidate the underlying subject matter -- in this case, more is not deeper, it is just more;
4. The collection of pornographic photos do not ultimately contain more academically valuable information than a single (or smaller number) of similar photos without separate claims to value (for example, there might be an argument for a shot of George W. Bush cumming on Angela Merkel's -- or Tony Blair's -- face, but that would be of historical interest rather than illustrative of sex and reproduction);
5. Ergo, a larger collection of pornographic photos on Wikipedia does not serve an interest separate from that of a bunch of teenage wankers wanting convenient and unblocked access to motivation for their tossing.

Essentially, there's a "unitary object or act" argument versus a "multiplicity of objects or acts" argument. The field of study argument is secondary, really. How's that?


I propose a sub-campaign combining both of these excellent ideas: how many photos can we upload of cum on the Statue of Liberty's face? Surely there is educational merit in that!

Well, if someone has PhotoShop, maybe they can superimpose the faces of the Arbcom bunch on the Statue?

I tried to argue that Commons should narrow down its images to those that are actually being used and to ensure that those being used add something to the pages. I was called a troll and an idiot for the suggestion.

I don't feel that the arguments in the debate are really anything within reason and they make up for any real argument by such tactics.

Well, I agree a major flaw is in the unwritten assumptions underlying the argument, but I'd say the fact that the argument has so many nontrivial unwritten assumptions is itself a flaw of the argument.

Of course, as the argument was not presented by someone who believed in its validity, tearing it down is not much different from attacking a straw man.

Hmm, I was going to say that this would be easily ignored. But I guess if we actually *take* the photos then we could easily rack up enough to cause problems.

But then, why the Statue of Liberty? Shouldn't be hard to take 10,000 photos a piece of something common, like trees.

Also suggests that the base argument, if true, is merely vacuously true. There is a limit to how many images of something would be tolerated on Commons. And that limit surely varies depending on the subject of the image.

Even that's overly generous. I'd imagine the vast majority of the photos of sex acts on Commons are completely contrived. They aren't shots of actual lovers engaging in a natural act. As such the idea that they would be of educational value in the first place is misplaced. You don't learn what sex is like from watching pornos.

Bumping this because it's brilliant idea. How many pictures of the Statue of Liberty receiving a Facial can be uploaded to Commons?

Let's find out...

Arbcom has little influence on what is hosted on enwiki, and no influence on what is hosted on Commons.

I propose we superimpose the heads of Wikimedia Foundation board members and employees on to the self portraits of Mr. Expert19612005.

And how does this relate to the Spanking Art and Dubya Bush?

You sound surprised. I come up with these sorts of things (i.e., brilliant ideas) on at least a weekly basis.

I dunno - I've been here longer than that.

And you act surprised when people want to cross wiki ban you.

But seriously, the above (i.e. many images of the Statue of Liberty) is exactly part of what I have been fighting against in general - any major collection of duplicate images that serve no purpose than because the uploader wanted -their- image up there.

The scope makes it rather clear that Commons is not supposed to be a personal photo gallery but all of those duplicate unused images sure have a blatant way of saying that it has become a personal photo gallery.

As I argued on the chatroom - William Blake has thousands of images. I wouldn't dream of having them uploaded until they were needed for specific pages (4 pages are already there that I know of - i.e. that I worked on - for notable illustrations, and many others are devoted to the books they are in). I'm a strong believer that there should be prior need to the image before it is even uploaded and that people can be given a day or two to put it into use but any not in use on a page should find a quick way off the site.

That would clean up 90% of the porn and most of the clutter in general.

Has anyone actually answered the question? Doesn't seem like a hard one to me.

No one has to verify the name of the Statue of Liberty. No one has to verify the legal age of the Statue of Liberty. This is not true for porn. Sexually-explicit images must be more carefully controlled due to their potential to do harm to real people, and I think they should tend to be limited to limit duplication if for no other reason than this potential to harm.

I think this is essentially the BLP argument. There's too much potentially damaging stuff and not enough eyeballs to monitor. This suggests that the moral course is pruning the most potentially damaging stuff.

The flaw I see in your argument:

Lets say we have 100,000. Lets say we limit it to 10,000. That is still the possibility of 10,000 people being minors in the pictures because we have no age verification. It is still the possibility of 10,000 people had the pictures taken without permission or uploaded without any permission.

If it is a BLP argument, merely limiting the number wont help. Age verification and a database of legal information would be needed. I would support such a thing.

If we're going to compare this to the BLP issue based on the possibility of doing harm to the subject, then I'd have to ask, how many of the people depicted in WP's porn-image collection actually want to be there? Off the top of my head, I'd have to say a significantly larger number of people, especially women, in the WP porn collection are being exploited, in some cases quite horribly. And it's certainly not a coincidence that the WP'ers who are arguing to keep the porn where it is are known to be roughly 87 percent male.

With BLP's we don't have definitive numbers any more than we do with the porn, but I'm on record as estimating that only about 3-5 percent of BLP subjects would want the articles about them deleted if you merely asked them, and if you pare it down to the people who would actually go through a "procedure" to get their articles deleted, it's probably half that. Whereas with women depicted in porn images, I'd be surprised if it's any less than 40-50 percent of the total (i.e., 50 percent of them would want those images to "go away"), and it could easily be a lot higher than that, depending on where these images are really coming from.

(Oops, that veered dangerously close to double-entendre.)

The question was whether the argument was valid or not, i.e. whether the premisses could be true without the conclusion being true. The question of whether the premisses are also true, i.e. whether the argument is technically sound, is a different matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument



OK that's a good reason to deny the validity of the argument. But what if there are is a group of people whose identities and age have been verified, such that there is no potential for harm. Is it then OK to upload as many images of their private bits as there are images of the statue? It seems to me there is still a problem here. The problem is (in my view) that the more images of the statue, the more it resembles an encyclopedia. The more images of penises and vaginas, the more it resembles a porn site.

For the argument to be valid, the two cases (penis/statue) have to be the same. Any fundamental difference (such as making the site resemble a porn site) could potentially invalidate the argument. That assumes, of course, that a porn site cannot be educational.

I've photoshopped a rather tasteful one. I'm worried it may be taken as offensive by our friends in the US and I wouldn't want our new coalition government to face an international incident so soon after its inception.

A tasteful facial? Ewww....

F -> F is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

Of course, your supposed "argument" doesn't really make much sense. What does it mean for "Wikipedia" to be "concerned about" something?

And do you really believe that "X is not concerned about Z" could logically follow from "X is not concerned about Y" without any pretense that all Y are Z?

Well, no, you don't believe anything...

The Categorical Imperative of Image Deletion:
----------------------------------------------------------

"Delete images only according to criteria whereby you can at the same time will that all images, regardless of type or usefulness, shall be deleted."

1) X is not concerned about Z. (Premise)
2) Z is the number of images of a certain type. (definition)
3) Y is the number of images of a different type. (definition)
4) Therefore X is not concerned about Y. (WTF?)

So, that argument is invalid, even though it may be (vacuously) true?

Your proofs seem to make a facial case for your argument.

Constructing proofs of the form F -> F is fun. Here's one of the unlimited possibilities:

1. Wikipedia is not concerned about how many images of the statue of liberty exist (there are currently around 150).

2. Therefore, Wikipedia acts as though it has has infinite hard drive space, people maintaining Wikipedia have infinite time to review images to make sure illegal ones are eliminated, and Wikipedia's search facilities are instantaneous and perfect - people are automatically presented with exactly the image which is most educational for them given their individual needs.

3. Ergo, Wikipedia is not concerned about how many images of a cumshot exist. If any such image is allowable at all (and let's say at least one is allowed), there is no upper limit on the number allowed.

EDIT: Added "acts as though it has", since the assumption and conclusion are phrased as "Wikipedia is", not "Wikipedia ought to be". With this change, who knows, maybe this is of the form T -> T, but then, if we're dealing merely with what people (or websites) are concerned about as opposed to what they ought to be concerned about, I guess all logic goes right out the window.

Theorem: It is what it is.

Proof: To be supplied.

It's a question of the stability of premises. WP:NOT is full of statments that WP IS NOT a number of things that it manifestly IS, in reality. So these statements are either falsehoods or attempts to modify the normal meaning of English words. Wikipedia IS NOT a battleground?? Certainly it is. Wikipedia IS NOT an almanac? Certainly it is. When Jimbo wrote a stub about some random eatery he'd had dinner at in South Africa, they choked on WP IS NOT a travelogue, but left it in (as well as Jimbo's article). These people are simply liars, or mentally ill, or both, is all. Words, to them, mean anything they want them to mean. Logic is meaningless when your terms cannot be defined, so in that sense logic does indeed go out the window in dealing with such people. But why should you expect it not to?

That is simply not how Commons works. If we were dealing with impeccably sourced and verified photos, your academic question about whether graphic sex is inherently un-educational might be one for that project to confront, but you've just assumed away the most troubling aspect of the status quo.

We can play this same game with the BLP problem. We could ask whether it would be educational if literally every name in the phonebook had (or could have) an entry. This might or might not be an interesting question (I tend to think it's not), but it conveniently sidesteps the reality that even so-called "notable" biographies are loaded guns.

By doing this bit of armchair philosophizing, we're ignoring the reality on the ground--which is that the content is poorly vetted, potentially damaging, and in many cases quite possibly illegal.

FWIW, I would be much more sanguine about Commons if it was a small number of possibly-perv contributors uploading endless iterations of their own penis. As always, we can't choose what people want to contribute to a wiki, but the management can and should create prudent controls. Commons fails spectacularly in this regard. I'll have the debate on the Platonic value of pornographic images once they fix it. I don't have high hopes.


I suspect somewhat lower figures, but I agree with the relative magnitude of the problem from the putative subject's perspective.

For me, "what is the meaning of knowledge?"-style musing takes a back seat to the apparent moral crisis on the ground at Commons.

Don't tempt me.


Well, you're still on Arbcom. That might carry some small bit of weight . Feel free to log into Commons, and try to talk those freaks into creating "prudent controls".

I think that might prove to be a disadvantage to our friendly squirrel. (Is he the squirrel who's alleged to have written most of the WP content?) In my experience of other projects, they resent the way that EN:WP bigwigs throw their weight around as if the other projects were subservient to them. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they go overboard about it.

This is an unusually cogent and responsible position for a Wikipedia ArbCom member to take. Good for you. Now comes the question: "What, if anything, are you prepared to do about it?" Indeed, if you were a fiduciary of Wikipedia, what would you do? What if you were personally liable for the libel, defamation, and calumnies? Would you continue to serve or affiliate with such an organization? For example, do you ever aspire to public office? Would you wish your affiliation with Wikipedia considered in that context?

Enquiring minds wish to know!

I'd say that it's invalid because:

1. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an image hosting service (regardless of the images). If a bunch of Statue of Liberty images are hosted in Commons but aren't even used in articles, then they should be deleted.

2. Hosting lots of unused porn images just for the sake of it will give the site bad PR (whether it's "prejudice" or not).

3. If unlimited porn images are allowed to be hosted (whether they're used in articles or not), Wikipedia will attract users who are just interested in using it to host their personal porn collections instead of actually interested in improving the encyclopedia.

Ding!

En.wikipedia is the United States of the Wikimedia world. No less an authority than Commons admin Durova says that I'm an SPA on that project. I have no weight there, and I don't want to spend more time dealing with their striking combination of irresponsibility and idiocy. I'll chime in when I'm aware of situations like this, but that's about it.

Good or you too, Gomi!