Andreas, I do not know from where you come from, But I tell you, from where I come: My worked for the Vatikan and we had several preachers in our house who had all a special sound in their voice. This special slobbery smart-aleck when they spoke about the depravity of the humanity with special focus of sexuality. And I must admit that the memory about this people came back in a very vivid way, when I read your reply.
Very interesting links you posted again - I must confess I did not know any of them and you must really search very intense to find this. I myself I have other things to do around the day than seaching and collecting sexy pictures and links to show them indignant afterwards als "evidence of controversy", but maybe I am too much busy with writing Wikipedia articles. But good that you care about the hurtings of WMF. I believe that they will thank you every day for this. Juliana 2012/3/7 Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > Juliana, > > You simply don't understand where I am coming from. > > I have nothing against Wikimedia websites hosting adult content, just like > I have nothing against the far greater amounts of explicit adult material > on Flickr for example. What saddens me though is that Wikimedia is unable > to grow up, and simply can't get it together to host such material > responsibly, like Flickr and YouTube do, behind an age-related filter. > Because that is far and away the mainstream position in society about adult > material. > > And I am saddened that at least some members of the Wikimedia Foundation > Board lack the balls and vision to make Wikimedia a mainstream operator, > and instead want to whimp out and give in to extremists. > > Now, I am aware of your work in German Wikipedia, and I think that German > Wikipedia generally curates controversial content well. German Wikipedia > would never have an illustration like the Donkey punch animation in > mainspace: > > http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html > > So to an extent I can understand German editors saying, "There is no > problem." But only to an extent. Commons and parts of English Wikipedia are > a joke. Even some people in German Wikipedia have understood this. In my > view, the editors who cluster around these topic areas in Commons and > English Wikipedia simply lack the ability to curate such material > responsibly. The internal culture is completely inappropriate. > > The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators > prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or > being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their > efforts: > > http://www.webcitation.org/65yLm9XpJ > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67910238&oldid=67910067 > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar > > The editor who designed this barnstar has just been blocked on Commons and > English Wikipedia by Geni, who (because of the Wikipedia Review discussion > thread, I guess) believes him to be the person reported to have been jailed > for possessing and distributing child pornography in the United States in > this article: > > http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 > > The editor has since been unblocked in Commons, while his unblock request > in English Wikipedia has been denied by the arbitration committee. > > Now, this chap has contributed to Wikimedia projects for almost eight > years. He has been one of the most active contributors to Wikimedia Commons > in the adult media area, part of a small group of self-selected editors who > decide what kind of adult educational media Wikimedia Commons should host > to support its tax-exempt educational brief. In the real world, he > represents a fringe political position and a worldview that is aggressively > opposed to mainstream society. In Wikimedia Commons, he is mainstream. That > is a problem. > > WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from > the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult > content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential > embarrassment for all the institutions collaborating with Wikimedia. And > the German community, happy with its largely well curated content in German > Wikipedia, is hurting the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole by preventing it > from moving towards the mainstream of society. > > Andreas > > > > 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José <julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com> > > > Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years > in > > Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. > > For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn > bodies > > and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting > > "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some > > mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content". > > > > Juliana > > > > > > 2012/3/6 Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte < > > > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related > > > > categories and images are also very popular among our readers and > that > > > the > > > > current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a > > great > > > > porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. > > Take a > > > > look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One > thing > > > to > > > > notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since > > > Wikipedia > > > > is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many > people > > > > visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short > > time > > > > browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we > > are a > > > > porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an > > argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor > > > becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results > in > > > the cluster search you proposed. Given that the > > > masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often > > than > > > other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps > > > appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons > and > > > Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should > give > > > them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that > > > approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so > > > might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those > > > interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.) > > > > > > By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a > porn > > > site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most > > > active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn > > wiki > > > of his own, where he says about himself, > > > > > > *"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and > > > that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, > i > > am > > > all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking > > > looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people > enjoy > > > seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a > > > porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away > > from > > > capitalist fuckers."* > > > > > > There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on > > > Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary > > sex > > > life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of > > > mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial > effort > > > for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I > > am > > > not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New > > York > > > Times readership would approve? > > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > > > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335 > > > > > > Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially > if a > > > nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to > > reduce > > > the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches > like > > > "toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the > opposite > > > effect: > > > > > > - When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons > > content > > > pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files. > > > - The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia > > > (female)< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>, > > > followed by Category:Vulva< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva> > > > and Category:Female > > > genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia> > > > . > > > - The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000 > > > times a day< > > > > > > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg > > > >, > > > compared to roughly 1 view a > > > day< > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG > > > > > > or less than one view a > > > day< > > > > http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg> > > > for > > > actual images of toothbrushes. > > > - Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of > a > > > toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory > > of > > > Category:Toothbrushes< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>, > > > the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is > > > primarily > > > an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is > > > included in Category:Shaved > > > genitalia (female)< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>, > > > which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of > > > Commons, > > > and it is also part of Category:Female > > > masturbation< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>, > > > the 10th most popular of all Commons categories. > > > - The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing > figures > > > will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing > > cucumbers, > > > but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have > > > browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber > > > category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media, > where > > > the > > > presence of a cucumber is merely incidental. > > > > > > More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after > > > maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3 > > > girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on > > > the main page. --*JN > > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466> > > > * 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think > > that > > > maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people > > are > > > actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more > often > > > than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush" > > > might just get people what they're looking for more often. The > "principle > > > of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if > our > > > horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it > > would > > > be astonishing not to serve it up to them. > > > Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt> > > > (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4 > March > > > 2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily > page > > > views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a > > > toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at > > > Category:Shaved > > > genitalia (female)< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)> > > > and Category:Female > > > masturbation< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation> > > > every > > > month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless > > of > > > how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at > images > > of > > > other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of > a > > > tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model > > > whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax > > exemption > > > and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy > > to > > > see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service? > > > Probably neither. --*JN > > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466< > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466> > > > * 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
