Full Version: Fox News back for round III
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:10pm) 
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a stranger to this tangled mess to sort things out? The worst mistake I see is her saying Wales is still President of WMF. But keep in mind he is referred to as god-king, founder, constitutional monarch, etc. The dual tracks of WMF and "community" is particularly hard to sort out, partially because it is used as a dodge and ruse. Ms. Winter does get the gestalt right. Confusion, anarchy and no body in charge while the much hailed volunteers are fighting to hold on to the pornography. That is the proper task of part three.
QUOTE
When asked who was in charge now, the source said, “No one. It’s chaos.â€
Ha...an accurate statement. But misleading, since it has been that way for years.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th May 2010, 2:42am)
The worst mistake I see is her saying Wales is still President of WMF.
Agreed. In fact, I thought the second half was pretty well done.
No doubt Wales will call it "completely unfounded libel" or somesuch, though.
QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 14th May 2010, 10:03pm)
QUOTE
When asked who was in charge now, the source said, “No one. It’s chaos.â€
Ha...an accurate statement. But misleading, since it has been that way for years.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th May 2010, 2:42am)
The worst mistake I see is her saying Wales is still President of WMF.
Agreed. In fact, I thought the second half was pretty well done.
No doubt Wales will call it "completely unfounded libel" or somesuch, though.
Ms. Winters could list uncommented excerpts from Foundation-L and Commons discussion pages and Wales would call it a smear, fabrication and libel.
What's really needed here is for someone to walk into a school library Dateline-style, fire up the computers, and see if they can get onto Wikipedia and what kind of smut they can dredge up. Then ask the librarian if they knew that this kind of material was available on Wikipedia. Then ask if Wikipedia will still be available for children to use after the visit. Then repeat the questions with the principal or superintendent. And maybe ask some concerned parents if they knew their children were using Wikipedia at school and what they were seeing.
All this stuff about Jimbo and the Board is just smoke and mirrors or as GBG says "palace politics".
The story is: Wikipedia has been distributing pornography to children for years. When made aware of this, Wikipedia refused to change, from the "community" all the way up to the highest levels. Anyone who wants to protect their children from being exposed to pornography should prevent them from reading Wikipedia.
All this stuff about Jimbo and the Board is just smoke and mirrors or as GBG says "palace politics".
The story is: Wikipedia has been distributing pornography to children for years. When made aware of this, Wikipedia refused to change, from the "community" all the way up to the highest levels. Anyone who wants to protect their children from being exposed to pornography should prevent them from reading Wikipedia.
Rub-a-dub-dub
This story may have legs, but they are wobbly legs, stumbling along with no clear destination in sight. WikiCulture has been adrift from its inception.
This story may have legs, but they are wobbly legs, stumbling along with no clear destination in sight. WikiCulture has been adrift from its inception.
Via private e-mail, Jana was aghast that her article said that Wales was "president" of the Foundation. Must have been an over-active editor taking charge of the facts.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th May 2010, 10:04am)
Jana was aghast that her article said that Wales was "president" of the Foundation.
Everyone knows he was actually Chairman Emeticus.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th May 2010, 2:42am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:10pm)
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a stranger to this tangled mess to sort things out? The worst mistake I see is her saying Wales is still President of WMF. But keep in mind he is referred to as god-king, founder, constitutional monarch, etc. The dual tracks of WMF and "community" is particularly hard to sort out, partially because it is used as a dodge and ruse. Ms. Winter does get the gestalt right. Confusion, anarchy and no body in charge while the much hailed volunteers are fighting to hold on to the pornography. That is the proper task of part three.
I think the worst mistake is the idea that this has somehow toppled Jimbo. It hasn't. He's been edging away from using his powers for a long time now, but Fox wants us to think they brought him down.
QUOTE(endallbeall @ Sat 15th May 2010, 1:37pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th May 2010, 2:42am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:10pm)
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a stranger to this tangled mess to sort things out? The worst mistake I see is her saying Wales is still President of WMF. But keep in mind he is referred to as god-king, founder, constitutional monarch, etc. The dual tracks of WMF and "community" is particularly hard to sort out, partially because it is used as a dodge and ruse. Ms. Winter does get the gestalt right. Confusion, anarchy and no body in charge while the much hailed volunteers are fighting to hold on to the pornography. That is the proper task of part three.
I think the worst mistake is the idea that this has somehow toppled Jimbo. It hasn't. He's been edging away from using his powers for a long time now, but Fox wants us to think they brought him down.
Any fair reading of the articles shows that Ms. Winter documented the presence of pornography on Commons, she documented Mr. Wales campaign to clean up at least some of the pornography, then she documented the community resistance to and derailing of the clean up. Covering events, obtaining a reply and following up to see if the promised follow-up actually occurs seems like proper journalism.
That is not "Fox bringing Mr. Wales down." If anything the overall impression is somewhat sympathetic to Wales who at least tried. It does leave the story with the porn remaining and no one appearing able to do anything about it, which seems about right.
QUOTE(endallbeall @ Sat 15th May 2010, 1:37pm)
He's been edging away from using his powers for a long time now
No, he's simply a lazy fuck who only uses his powers when he has something to gain from it. This was a huge slap in the face to Jimbo, make no bones about it. Nonsense about "edging away from using his powers" and the like is just a lame attempt on his part to save face.
On second reading, it's not bad. I particularly like this paragraph:
QUOTE
Several of those donors contacted the foundation to inquire about the thousands of images on Wikimedia’s servers that could be considered child pornography. There also are graphic photo images of male and female genitalia, men and women or groups of people involved in sexual acts, images of masturbation and other pornographic material — all of which can be viewed by children at most public schools, where students are encouraged to use Wikipedia as a source encyclopedia.
There is no doubt that Jana Winter's articles have been a net positive, but seriously, I haven't seen so many errors in an article since my middle school newspaper, and sadly, all those little inaccuracies dilute her message.
It's just another right-wing moral panic, such as has been happening as long as mankind has existed, and in which facts and logic have little or no place. In the 1950s it was comic books and rock'n'roll that were destroying our children; in the 1990s it was that newfangled Internet; now it's Wikipedia/Wikimedia. In the 1500s the Inquisition found plenty of targets.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 15th May 2010, 4:06pm)
It's just another right-wing moral panic, such as has been happening as long as mankind has existed, and in which facts and logic have little or no place. In the 1950s it was comic books and rock'n'roll that were destroying our children; in the 1990s it was that newfangled Internet; now it's Wikipedia/Wikimedia. In the 1500s the Inquisition found plenty of targets.
Your arguments, once taken without examination, have lost any persuasive power at all. There is nothing wrong with people being concerned about a purported "educational resource" used by countless school children that is riddled with pornography. This is not a concern of the "right" but of sensible people across the political spectrum. Only irresponsible libertarians seem to find no problem. They might locally appear concentrated in places such as websites like Wikipedia but they are not an important part of social consensus or even dialogue.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:10pm)
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
Unfortunately, I believe this was inevitable. Right from the beginning Fox News rarely missed an opportunity to toot its own horn, or that of the GOP which it serves as an undeclared spokesagency. The article actually does do a good description of the chaos that reigns at WMF sites, but appears to wrongly attribute that to the present controversy. In fact, it is strictly SNAFU.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 15th May 2010, 5:06pm)
It's just another right-wing moral panic, such as has been happening as long as mankind has existed, and in which facts and logic have little or no place. In the 1950s it was comic books and rock'n'roll that were destroying our children; in the 1990s it was that newfangled Internet; now it's Wikipedia/Wikimedia. In the 1500s the Inquisition found plenty of targets.
Meh. This Frei Kultur Kinder vs. The Rest of the World stuff is all fun and games until someone gets arrested or indicted.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 15th May 2010, 3:47pm)
Unfortunately, I believe this was inevitable. Right from the beginning Fox News rarely missed an opportunity to toot its own horn, or that of the GOP which it serves as an undeclared spokesagency.
This is S.O.P. for Fox. Take a look at some of their other articles today.....it's typical Murdoch faux-hysteria trolling, aimed at the white middle American. Fox looooves to rant about terrorists and "gay abortion", because that's what red-state types love to rant about. (Or look at one of Murdoch's papers, like the New York Post. Pure sleaze and trash. It's just "good business".)
QUOTE
No, he's simply a lazy fuck who only uses his powers when he has something to gain from it.
And getting lazier as time wears on.
QUOTE(John Limey @ Sat 15th May 2010, 9:08pm)
There is no doubt that Jana Winter's articles have been a net positive, but seriously, I haven't seen so many errors in an article since my middle school newspaper, and sadly, all those little inaccuracies dilute her message.
Other than the "president" thing, what was inaccurate?
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 15th May 2010, 11:06pm)
It's just another right-wing moral panic, such as has been happening as long as mankind has existed, and in which facts and logic have little or no place. In the 1950s it was comic books and rock'n'roll that were destroying our children; in the 1990s it was that newfangled Internet; now it's Wikipedia/Wikimedia. In the 1500s the Inquisition found plenty of targets.
Concern about distributing pornography to my children = 'moral panic'. Thank you.
I dunno about "right-wing moral panic" but a great deal of content on WP and Commons is ghastly, dreadful, revolting, appalling, disgusting, wretched, and repugnant.
Then again, children and adolescents often find such material inexplicably attractive.
Then again, children and adolescents often find such material inexplicably attractive.
To clarify!
QUOTE
Late last week Fox News ran a news story about Wikimedia projects, focussing on Jimmy Wales, which included quite a bit of false information. We would like to clarify some of those details
Jimmy is the founder of Wikipedia and of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a key editorial role in our projects, by virtue of his special status as our founder, and due to his continued active engagement in the projects. Jimmy is not the President of the Wikimedia Foundation nor is he President of Wikipedia: there are no such roles. The chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is Michael Snow (not according to the Wikipedia page about Jimmy Wales), and the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation is Sue Gardner. They have both been in those positions for several years. Jimmy is Chair Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, as he has been for several years now.
Last weekend Jimmy voluntarily relinquished some technical user-account privileges he has historically held, but that in no way affects his official status with Wikimedia, nor his editorial position. It was false to claim that Jimmy ever held final editorial control on our projects — his decision to change the technical details of his user account should not be interpreted as changes to his status in general. Jimmy is actively engaged in discussions with other Wikimedia editors about sexually-explicit materials on Wikimedia Commons: discussions like that are part of his normal role, and are part of the normal work of being an active volunteer. He is a thought leader in the Wikimedia projects, and although the discussions over the past week have been unusually intense, we don’t consider them problematic. Discussion is how Wikimedians work through policy development and policy interpretation: active argument and debate are normal for us — they are how we do our work. The Wikimedia Foundation is grateful for Jimmy’s involvement, and we’re glad he continues to be an important part of the Wikimedia movement.
Jay Walsh, Communications
Jimmy is the founder of Wikipedia and of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a key editorial role in our projects, by virtue of his special status as our founder, and due to his continued active engagement in the projects. Jimmy is not the President of the Wikimedia Foundation nor is he President of Wikipedia: there are no such roles. The chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is Michael Snow (not according to the Wikipedia page about Jimmy Wales), and the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation is Sue Gardner. They have both been in those positions for several years. Jimmy is Chair Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, as he has been for several years now.
Last weekend Jimmy voluntarily relinquished some technical user-account privileges he has historically held, but that in no way affects his official status with Wikimedia, nor his editorial position. It was false to claim that Jimmy ever held final editorial control on our projects — his decision to change the technical details of his user account should not be interpreted as changes to his status in general. Jimmy is actively engaged in discussions with other Wikimedia editors about sexually-explicit materials on Wikimedia Commons: discussions like that are part of his normal role, and are part of the normal work of being an active volunteer. He is a thought leader in the Wikimedia projects, and although the discussions over the past week have been unusually intense, we don’t consider them problematic. Discussion is how Wikimedians work through policy development and policy interpretation: active argument and debate are normal for us — they are how we do our work. The Wikimedia Foundation is grateful for Jimmy’s involvement, and we’re glad he continues to be an important part of the Wikimedia movement.
Jay Walsh, Communications
This blog is made fo' cussing
And that's just what we'll do
One of these days this blog
Is gonna cum all over you.
And that's just what we'll do
One of these days this blog
Is gonna cum all over you.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 17th May 2010, 3:48pm)
This blog is made fo' cussing
And that's just what we'll do
One of these days this blog
Is gonna cum all over you.
Moulton's best in a long, long time!
So Walsh and the Board of Directors are comfortable with the large volume of pornography found on Commons? Mr. Wales insistence that at least some of the pornography be removed and the rejection of the removal by "the community" was normal health discussion? Mr. Wales surrendering powers he possessed since the inception of the project was routine event and nothing outside the ordinary? The continued presence of the pornography hosted of Commons including many Mr. Wales identified as deserving removal is something which Mr.Walsh and the WMF Board of Directors are comfortable with now?
Why the previous statement by WMF, Mr.Godwin (WMF General Counsel) and Mr.Wales that "volunteers" work vigilantly to remove pornography? Isn't the truth that those "volunteers" actively discussed and decided they want the pornography to remain?
WMF's official response:
WMF's general counsel Mike Godwin:
Mr. Wales himself:
Why the previous statement by WMF, Mr.Godwin (WMF General Counsel) and Mr.Wales that "volunteers" work vigilantly to remove pornography? Isn't the truth that those "volunteers" actively discussed and decided they want the pornography to remain?
WMF's official response:
QUOTE
Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.
WMF's general counsel Mike Godwin:
QUOTE
there is no doubt that there is a community of editors on Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere that takes pains not to post material that is clearly illegal. There is no evidence in Sanger's message that the community has failed in its efforts to make sure that the content of Wikimedia Commons is legal, at least in the context of the law applicable to Wikimedia Foundation as a hosting provider.
Mr. Wales himself:
QUOTE
I am proud to be able to say: if you search for pornographic terms at Wikipedia, you will not get pornography, you will get responsible explanations handled in a mature way.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th May 2010, 1:17pm)
So Walsh and the Board of Directors are comfortable with the large volume of pornography found on Commons? Mr. Wales insistence that at least some of the pornography be removed and the rejection of the removal by "the community" was normal health discussion? Mr. Wales surrendering powers he possessed since the inception of the project was routine event and nothing outside the ordinary? The continued presence of the pornography hosted of Commons including many Mr. Wales identified as deserving removal is something which Mr.Walsh and the WMF Board of Directors are comfortable with now?
Give it up; you can't win. This is just the same argument as the Goldilocks Theodicy, which argues that since God is benificent and omnipotent, it follows by logic that the world is always the best of all possible worlds, no matter what you do to it. Therefore, however much evil you remove, the amount of evil that is LEFT, is just the RIGHT amount of evil for teaching purposes.
Thus, don't worry about screwing this up. Try as you will, you always end up with things exactly as they were MEANT to be. Admitting otherwise would be to admit an imperfection in Divine Design, and we can't have THAT.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th May 2010, 9:10pm)
The "reporting" is just getting sloppier and sloppier. Methinks Jana's in over her head, so Fox is going for the self-congratulatory angle now. Too bad.
It's Fox, so what do you expect? Hyperbole attracts better ratings than strict news reporting, so they're usually go where the money's at. Plus Wikipedia is a "rival" news source, so it goes without saying that they'd jump at a chance to bash their competition.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 17th May 2010, 7:42pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th May 2010, 1:17pm)
So Walsh and the Board of Directors are comfortable with the large volume of pornography found on Commons? Mr. Wales insistence that at least some of the pornography be removed and the rejection of the removal by "the community" was normal health discussion? Mr. Wales surrendering powers he possessed since the inception of the project was routine event and nothing outside the ordinary? The continued presence of the pornography hosted of Commons including many Mr. Wales identified as deserving removal is something which Mr.Walsh and the WMF Board of Directors are comfortable with now?
Give it up; you can't win. This is just the same argument as the Goldilocks Theodicy, which argues that since God is benificent and omnipotent, it follows by logic that the world is always the best of all possible worlds, no matter what you do to it. Therefore, however much evil you remove, the amount of evil that is LEFT, is just the RIGHT amount of evil for teaching purposes.
Thus, don't worry about screwing this up. Try as you will, you always end up with things exactly as they were MEANT to be. Admitting otherwise would be to admit an imperfection in Divine Design, and we can't have THAT.
Why "give it up?" WMF took a major blow in public relations. "Wikipedia" and "pornography" will be linked in popular opinion in a way not previously known. Schools will block access to Wikipedia and doors will close to zealots who want to encourage Wikipedia among school children. My only concern is that this makes its way onto Fox televised news. Hopefully not the talking head info-tainment Beck and O'Reily crap but just ordinary news. Despite Fox's slanted and partisan programming it also has significant news gathering and investigative ability of which is represented by Janna Winters articles. Fox network channels provide the principal source of news to tens of millions of viewers. They need not be right wingers but just viewers that watch the news that follow American Idol or some other entertainment show. The vast majority of the stories covered outside the cable entertainment/news shows is just factual coverage with little or no partisan slant.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th May 2010, 8:49pm)
Why "give it up?" WMF took a major blow in public relations. "Wikipedia" and "pornography" will be linked in popular opinion in a way not previously known. Schools will block access to Wikipedia and doors will close to zealots who want to encourage Wikipedia among school children. My only concern is that this makes its way onto Fox televised news. Hopefully not the talking head info-tainment Beck and O'Reily crap but just ordinary news. Despite Fox's slanted and partisan programming it also has significant news gathering and investigative ability of which is represented by Janna Winters articles. Fox network channels provide the principal source of news to tens of millions of viewers. They need not be right wingers but just viewers that watch the news that follow American Idol or some other entertainment show. The vast majority of the stories covered outside the cable entertainment/news shows is just factual coverage with little or no partisan slant.
But the average FOX news viewer, who probably access the intervet via WebTV and hasn't edited WP a day in his life, is going to believe that the problem was a few porn images which crept onto WP and were removed, ala Walsh and Jimbo. And Jimbo is, in a sense, right. If you search for "porn terms" on WP, it doesn't immediately present you with the wall of cumshot images from COMMONS. If it did, there would be public outrage. That wall exists, but it takes some WP savvy to find it.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 18th May 2010, 10:03am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th May 2010, 8:49pm)
WMF took a major blow in public relations. "Wikipedia" and "pornography" will be linked in popular opinion in a way not previously known.
If nothing else, Fox has managed to stir up the tech bloggers and editorialists.
Today alone I counted 32 entries from Google News. Despite this having apparently "died down", it's still a hot topic for blogs. Here are the top results:
cnet
Guardian
Computerworld
Another cnet item
Neowin
The Frontline
TopNews
Katonda interviews Jay Walsh
ITProPortal
TechEye
GigaOm
eWeek
About.com WebTrends
Good Morning Silicon Valley
Paul Boutin at VentureBeat appears to have the best coverage.
(Meaning, the most "fair and balanced". Ha ha.)
Now, wasn't that refreshing?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 18th May 2010, 2:38pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 18th May 2010, 10:03am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th May 2010, 8:49pm)
WMF took a major blow in public relations. "Wikipedia" and "pornography" will be linked in popular opinion in a way not previously known.
If nothing else, Fox has managed to stir up the tech bloggers and editorialists.
Today alone I counted 32 entries from Google News. Despite this having apparently "died down", it's still a hot topic for blogs. Here are the top results:
cnet
Guardian
Computerworld
Another cnet item
Neowin
The Frontline
TopNews
Katonda interviews Jay Walsh
ITProPortal
TechEye
GigaOm
eWeek
About.com WebTrends
Good Morning Silicon Valley
Paul Boutin at VentureBeat appears to have the best coverage.
(Meaning, the most "fair and balanced". Ha ha.)
Now, wasn't that refreshing?
Wikipedia and it's allies seem to assert the defense "you said Jimbo was still president of the board so ha ha nothing else matters" and "Fox is the bad kind of right wing extremist (they themselves are the good kind of right wing extremist at least in their own eyes.) so it doesn't count." In the face of the huge volume of pornography exposed and the public commitment and failure to do anything about it I'm amazed they would be willing to carry WMF's water in that bucket.
Plus if you didn't carry the story you're an ass kissing worm to carry the denial.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.