Wikipedia, porn, and the FBI: how sexual images are handled
Well-balanced and well-written. Imagine how much more detail he would have added to it
if he knew about Wikipedia Review.
Full Version: Ars Technica weighs in on Wikipornmess
Rather insightful comment, by Rabish12:
Of course, it being Ars Technica, the comment is ignored.
QUOTE
Actually, I looked into it because the article wasn't entirely clear about the situation with Wales. He isn't being strung up because of images on Wikipedia or any involvement he has in their removal. He's being strung up because he went on Wikiversity, a project that's more or less meant to be entirely managed by its community and only hosted by Wikimedia and whose processes and rules are meant to be decided democratically by said community, and completely bypassed the community and their rules to remove a page he objected to (not because of pornography but because it proposed a project that could potentially interfere with Wikipedia) and block the user that created that page, then demote someone who unblocked the user and restored the page to allow the proper process to be followed, and then mishandled things from there so badly that he couldn't really manage to come out as anything but the villain in the whole thing.
Wales ignored the basic principles on which all Wikimedia projects work - those of democracy and strong community involvement - and did so on a project that arguably embodies those principles better than any other project possibly could. It has nothing to do porn or the FBI, and everything to do with Wales getting involved in a way he shouldn't have and (by doing so) throwing the fact that he's been given god powers over everything under the Wikimedia umbrella and can do whatever he likes with any of the pages on any of those projects without any chance of serious opposition regardless of how the communities that are meant to be running the wikis feel about his decisions. Wales can more or less do anything on any Wikimedia project not because he's proven his ability to do so responsibly but because he founded Wikimedia, and the Wikiversity project seems to have proven that he can't really be given the kind of absolute trust that this kind of absolute power over Wikimedia projects would demand.
Wales really deserves the kind of thrashing he's getting, and if his founder rights aren't removed (at least for Wikiversity) it would pretty much destroy all the meaning and significance Wikiversity gains from its deeply community-based approach. And really, I think just the mere fact that he is always guaranteed to get his way if he wants it badly enough over anything anywhere on Wikimedia with that founder flag undermines the entire spirit of the foundation.
Wales ignored the basic principles on which all Wikimedia projects work - those of democracy and strong community involvement - and did so on a project that arguably embodies those principles better than any other project possibly could. It has nothing to do porn or the FBI, and everything to do with Wales getting involved in a way he shouldn't have and (by doing so) throwing the fact that he's been given god powers over everything under the Wikimedia umbrella and can do whatever he likes with any of the pages on any of those projects without any chance of serious opposition regardless of how the communities that are meant to be running the wikis feel about his decisions. Wales can more or less do anything on any Wikimedia project not because he's proven his ability to do so responsibly but because he founded Wikimedia, and the Wikiversity project seems to have proven that he can't really be given the kind of absolute trust that this kind of absolute power over Wikimedia projects would demand.
Wales really deserves the kind of thrashing he's getting, and if his founder rights aren't removed (at least for Wikiversity) it would pretty much destroy all the meaning and significance Wikiversity gains from its deeply community-based approach. And really, I think just the mere fact that he is always guaranteed to get his way if he wants it badly enough over anything anywhere on Wikimedia with that founder flag undermines the entire spirit of the foundation.
Of course, it being Ars Technica, the comment is ignored.
And a comment from me (perhaps soon to be deleted):
QUOTE
I don't believe it's mentioned, but I think it's a very important point. Wikipedia's and the Commons' contributor community and WMF ownership alike encourage the inclusion of minor children as site administrators. Then, these administrators are given the responsibility of examining photographic uploads such as the following, to determine whether or not they are "suitable" for the free culture space:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expert19612005....JPG
I don't know what century some of the rest of you live in, but I frankly don't think it's ethical to ask and encourage children to adjudicate over content like that. If you think I'm just talking hypothetically, I am not. We know of one underage administrator who actively decided on the status of a photo of a frontally nude female, where the age and identity of the subject was undetermined. Of course, the child elected to "keep" the photo. That's what children will do when irresponsible adults like Jimmy Wales and Erik Moeller give them free rein to explore "free culture".
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expert19612005....JPG
I don't know what century some of the rest of you live in, but I frankly don't think it's ethical to ask and encourage children to adjudicate over content like that. If you think I'm just talking hypothetically, I am not. We know of one underage administrator who actively decided on the status of a photo of a frontally nude female, where the age and identity of the subject was undetermined. Of course, the child elected to "keep" the photo. That's what children will do when irresponsible adults like Jimmy Wales and Erik Moeller give them free rein to explore "free culture".
Yes, it's a good analysis by rabish12. But if he had dug a little deeper, he would have found that Jimbo's intervention at Wikiversity was not the first time he had done something like that. Previously, Jimbo intervened at Wikiversity to shut down a study of the managerial ethics (or lack thereof) on the English Wikipedia.
I think it is wrong to let the the pornography issue devolve into a discussion of about participatory democracy on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. This shifts the focus away from applying external standards to Wikipedia and into wanky processes that no one outside of Wikipedia and the tech press cares about. Wikiversity "dissidents" who gave support to the "porn rioter" demonstrated a selfish and narrow view. I dare say they have caused the level of the actualization of their moral development to be called into question.
To the wider community the narrative that has been established is: Wikipedia has a large volume of highly offensive and disturbing pornography. Initially WMF denied this and claimed that "volunteers" worked diligently to remove unacceptable content. As the level and nature of pornography became undeniable the leadership of the project conceded this an took steps to address it. These steps were thwarted by the very same "volunteers" that WMF had claimed to rely on to address the problem. A better degree of exposé cannot be achieved by shifting attention to arcane problems of Wikiversity.
To the wider community the narrative that has been established is: Wikipedia has a large volume of highly offensive and disturbing pornography. Initially WMF denied this and claimed that "volunteers" worked diligently to remove unacceptable content. As the level and nature of pornography became undeniable the leadership of the project conceded this an took steps to address it. These steps were thwarted by the very same "volunteers" that WMF had claimed to rely on to address the problem. A better degree of exposé cannot be achieved by shifting attention to arcane problems of Wikiversity.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 19th May 2010, 12:14pm) 
Rather insightful comment, by Rabish12:
QUOTE
...
Wales ignored the basic principles on which all Wikimedia projects work - those of democracy and strong community involvement - and did so on a project that arguably embodies those principles better than any other project possibly could.....
Wales ignored the basic principles on which all Wikimedia projects work - those of democracy and strong community involvement - and did so on a project that arguably embodies those principles better than any other project possibly could.....
What Wikiversity is he talking about?
o.O
We were never a Democracy. People leave each other alone, but we are not a democracy. Individual teachers have full control over their different classes so they can be little tyrants. We don't decide by popular vote on what other people can say or do.
As for the other projects, none of them are democracies either.
>.<
You've got to laugh. That's what happened to the Wikimedia Commons links:
Infringing content: "Links removed" Official Moderator Warning for (Linking to pornographic images).
Infringing content: "Links removed" Official Moderator Warning for (Linking to pornographic images).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.