The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold. WMF secretary Phoebe Ayers has advised that The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

The fact that the thread came to a screeching halt, and others changed the subject on the list,
ought to tell you something. Never have I seen so many allegedly-"smart" people so unwilling to
confront a basic problem that is well within their abilities.

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

Given that there is precious little discussion actually needed, it is inconceivable that the Board couldn't find the time if they had any real interest.

It strikes me that this is the same as the flagged revisions, create a proposal, do enough to make publicity on it, leave those proposals in the public domain so that if challenged in the real world they can say it is being done, while not actually caring.

There is another prediction of the critics that has come rapidly true too. WMF is not really interested in the project, they have a wonderful money grabbing machine and now the money is more important than the project. Given that the WMF is awash with funds, it is bizarre to suggest that the concerns on money are so all-consuming that the board cannot function effectively on any other topic.

I would also comment that Peter's pressing of Wiki UK Ltd seems to have been very successful. Fae has absolutely understood that Wiki UK Ltd is genuinely at risk from these shenanigans, and while we might question his motives, he has been making several moves that are in line with taking the project in a better direction, and is learning that Wikipedia is no more his friend than the vipers' nest he perceives WR to be. Rather like BLP, improvement can be made and although the results aren't perfect, it is possible to make improvements elsewhere over time if the leadership is there. The fundamental issue with Wiki UK Ltd is that they had to show that the project had proper controls or else they could not demonstrate an exclusively charitable purpose of the charity. The fact that we have clear evidence of rejection of controls is very helpful to the de-registering of Wiki UK Ltd as a charity - if the WMF are not prepared to control the project, then Wiki UK Ltd cannot claim to be supporting an appropriate clause. The Charity Commission are currently claiming there is a subtle difference between being satisfied for the creation of a charity and the situation once it is up, but it all starts to look like it is valid to claim that the CC were mislead as to the practicality of the controls on the project.

Similarly, the fund-raising was supposed to be "keep the servers running" but what is clear is that the interests of WMF are unrelated to the project these days, they have a heap of money that they don't know what to do with. They raised money under false pretences, and they'll have to explain that to the UK authorities.

Thanks, guys!

Looks like Jimmy is fishing for ways to spin the lack of action on the promised action.

scuppered

And Jimbo's talk page is full of "supervise your children properly, it's not our problem." or "porn is good for you". It is amazing how Wikipedia keeps proving its critics right and yet the real world falls for Jimbo's spin. Jimbo's problem is that you can only say "We are doing something about it" for so long before eventually even the public will twig that they've been had - and the press really hate being embarrassed by falling for the spin and they'll do him over when they see the opportunity for the biggest fall.

Charity leeching money from the public for who knows what + porn site + defamation + misleading politicians = heading for a big fall.

WMF are in danger of giving Fox News a good name.

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

thank you, I missed it first time around.

Greg pretty much nailed the big picture - even if the details weren't 100% prescient;"... will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion" [through bureaucratic means.] Then again, he nailed a couple of the details too.

HRIP7 said;


Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

toothbrush is nothing try forefinger.

Yes, that was the toothbrush thing. Fæ, to his credit, was trying to fix it. An important thing to note here is that the search results in Wikipedia are much the same as those in Commons. And seeing these search results under the Wikipedia logo is perhaps even more astonishing.

For example, Natka from the Stop Pornography on Wikipedia Facebook page just added the search term "human" to the Meta page listing all these "unusual" Commons search results (a page that could do with expansion).

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

By the way, I think that Facebook page could prove really useful. The Fox reporter who wrote the recent article showed up there a few days before his piece appeared. Facebook and Twitter are generally a much more effective medium for campaigning than a closed and somewhat insular site like WR. Natka is doing a really good job over there, and WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

Selina's covering that duty now.

I don't know whether this is why Jimbo is asking the question about how many categories there are, but that is certainly an argument that is sometimes made – "we have soooooo many categories that contain some adult files, we could never identify them all ... the universe would end before we'd be done".

The problem with that is that Robert Harris, the consultant who did the controversial content study, once stated to me that it would take him a couple of afternoons to identify the relevant categories. And he is right.

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".

I take your word for it.

On a more positive note, I note that it is currently safe again to do a Multimedia search for "tolling bells" in Commons or Wikipedia. File history. The rename was not popular at first though, judging by comments in the deletion discussion.

Cream pie is entirely wholesome now, it appears. (I only mention it so that someone gets over-excited at Wikipedia and "puts it right" again.

Yes:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...rning_re._moves

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67647934:

No agenda here at all then.

I was just going to note that. Where do they find these people.

The best thing WMF could do is implement a hide image feature in the software so that it can't be disabled. They will need a solid rationale. Within a few days the 'clever' people at Commons will find ways to circumvent it and then the WMF can ban them. There will be riots and dozens of editors will leave the project and start a new one, which will fail quickly, and Commons will be rid of the more radical bombasts, at least for a time.

I suppose the underlying question is why someone like Beta_M is allowed to roam free subverting Wikipedia to his own ends, when others who seek to protect Wikipedia are driven off? Why have the advocates of one particular point of view been allowed to become so dominant, even when the WMF are supposedly on the case?

Beta_M is "politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise."

In other words, your typical commons contributor.

Here's his user page on his very own porn wiki. It doesn't look very busy.
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/User:VolodyA!_V_Anarhist

There must be at least one porn addict in the world willing to spend a day doing that for a hundred bucks.

Fifty bucks. The WMF obviously can't afford $100.

Good find. Here is what he says about himself:
Welcome to Commons.

Wow, that pretty much proves the point. I always suspected that the World Book was fascist for that very reason.

Why isn't that on List of anarchist pornographic projects and models?

It is, it is ... put there by the man himself.

That has to be one of the stupidest "lists" in Wikipedia history. Is that Beta M guy "important" in any possible way? He's been on WP since 2004, and he's 100% looney.....

Stay tuned.

Bwahahah! The 'Hot Sex' barnstar!

I'm tired of all the porn on Wikipedia. They keep falling off!

At last, this thread redeems itself!

And did you catch who created that particular barnstar? Beta M! It's a small world after all...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67730900

Beta_M supports Commons becoming a repository of cartoon child porn. Beta_M is perhaps a fan of graphic child porn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=352912824

Also, here's Beta_M defending child porn:

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protection...hild_sadvocates

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/There_is_a..._cannot_express

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/shortcomin...alian_Sex_Party

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Australia_...aphy_upon_entry

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/court_forc...tay_with_father

tarantino has uncovered more information on the possible Beta_M-child porn connection:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37062

It is interesting that Beta_M has found such a visible place to engage in activism. Commons is full of these characters.

'Anti-censorship' is the foundation of their rationale - it gives them faith in their moral superiority while uploading pictures of their wieners.

I'm a reasonable man. Tell ya what, WMF, as Chief Negotiator for en-WP I'll trade you your beloved censorship filter for belated acceptance of the premise that only autoconfirmed users should be permitted to start articles...


t

[Mod note: the tangential diatribes about porn and social stereotypes has been moved to here.]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=66555914

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=67845532

Niabot and Paddy (a former dewiki and Commons sysop) have given each other the "Hot Sex" barnstar. They're a tag-team:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...kumizu_Girl.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e_20#User:Paddy

They're also friends on YouTube:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22niabot%22+%22paddyez%22

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546690

Niabot believes that adults having sex with teenagers isn't pedophilia.

My commentary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/03/wikipedias-...and-a-proposal/

That's a good point about the "real danger" being the potential for a mass exodus of rational/sane contributors (what few are left!) in response to the increasing number of porn advocates. I might even go further and say that the number and vociferousness of porn advocates has already reached a "critical mass" that could trigger that exodus in the near term, before they're really able to respond to it in a meaningful or effective way.

And it's not just the fact that there are zillions of pages that would no longer be properly maintained - those same pages would be less and less "defended" against that increasing number of porn advocates, quack-medicine people, conspiracy nuts, ad infinitum. Eventually it might even reach the point where they can't even protect the site against major corporations!

Good post by Larry. I've asked the WMF board members and the Executive Director for an official statement on the bestiality video:

Thanks Dr. Sanger. Very interesting to see board members back-peddling in one of the links you have there.


The board has starting to whimper and snivel (see Dr. Sanger's editorial for links), and the lovely David Gerard has contributed this fiercely intelligent response. Usually he invokes references to the evil of 'Merican gun toting Republican religious right prudes' (or Disenyland) to glorify porn by contrast - but not this time! Maybe he reads the WR.

<edit>
"Damn, I want to get re-elected"

Phoebe's getting roasted on a spit. It's a shame, I always liked her.

Agree. I always liked her too. And she always answered promptly and graciously when I asked her about the status of the image filter discussions. But she's putting her head in the sand here, hoping that that will make her look more electable.

News flash: none of them are "electable". If the WMF were a "real" nonprofit charitable foundation,
they would not hire this motley gang of random nerds, okay? They would hire professionals
(or at least, someone who looks sort of professional).

They would also not have a "Board of Advisors" that contains a
chronic liar who edits both her own Wikipedia bio, and the bios of
her friends and co-workers. (And has friends and co-workers doing the same.)

Stepping back for a moment, what does this tell us?

The WMF, the board that is responsible for the health of the project, has admitted when they tries to implement a simple change in the project to try and ensure that people were not unwittingly exposed to controversial content that they were subject to bullying and abuse from the community and therefore they changed their mind.

Now let's link that with Commons. There we have clear evidence that an unsavoury bunch of characters are using the project to further their own ideology on controversial content. In the process of doing this they are prepared to foster admitted pedophiles and when challenged are now going around altering the history of the project to cover up some of their tactical errors. There is a small reactive response to specific issues, but there is no sign that there is any controlling body that is going to attempt any corrective action.

So the WMF has no control over the policies of Wikimedia; accepts being bullied out of making decisions to improve the reach and acceptability of the project; and has no control over the ruling elite of the various projects and that the board members are content to operate in such an environment.

Now, let's consider where this leaves Wiki UK Ltd. They have claimed that there is policy that directs the proper governance of the project, yet here we have a fine example of an attempt at implementing a responsible publishing policy and they admit that they have no ability to implement it.

The joys of mob rule.