On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
81 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
Not long ago I had a gaffe on internal-l, by publicly expressing
opinion what do I really think about Wiki Loves Monuments, although my
intention was to send a private email. However, WLM has a number of
good sides: Commons will be filled with photos, people will spend time
together, it makes at least some parts of the movement more coherent.
Besides the fact that making depictions of depictions is a classical
European type of decadency. Anyway, if that's the worst thing in our
movement, I could live with that.

But, it is not.

If Board doesn't intervene *now*, it could be easily concluded that
the worst thing ever happened to our movement has started these days.

Up to the end of the so called "referendum", everything was as usual:
Because of <I promised to myself that won't use at this point phrase
"Jimmy's sexually impaired rich friends"> Board articulated something
in opposition of majority of editors (yes, majority of editors; I
really don't care what one sexually impaired member of Concerned Women
for America with 17 edits thinks about Wikipedia [1][2]); then it
wanted to implement it anyway, including bizarre questionnaire called
"referendum"; then heated discussion sparked; then results came; then
results from German Wikipedia came, as well.

Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
don't ask for the filter explicitly. As members of that organization
probably don't know any other language except English, everybody will
be happy. Except the core editors of English Wikipedia, of course. But
Board doesn't care about them, anyway; which means that English
Wikipedia is reasonable scapegoat for Wikimedia movement to please
sexually impaired Americans and others.

But, we have one much more serious problem in front of us. Instead of
going toward the solution, we are going in opposite direction. Instead
of concluding this three years long drama, Censorship Committee and
Board want to "analyze" the numbers and prolong agony for another
three years. And if that agony has something useful, important at the
end, I could even say that we need to make reasonable sacrifice (in my
area it would be solved by slaughtering pig or goat or whatever, which
is more reasonable than wasting three more years, by the way).

But, it doesn't have.

The most important reason for this bizarre expression of mismanagement
is to please, as mentioned before, sexually impaired Americans. If
that's the main reason, please, please them *now* or forget
everything.

Like WLM, this Board's pet project is expression of decadency. This
time American. However, unlike WLM, this project won't fill Commons
with photos. Quite opposite, this project will make significant
problems to the Commons community. People will spend time together
indeed, but in arguing who is right and who's not. It already divides
the movement on a couple of lines.

I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
participate into the "Next steps" [3]! Holy Thing! That will produce
much more sexual content than any "porn" photo on Commons. In Serbian
we say for that "fucking in healthy brain". If not exterminated at the
beginning, that brainfuck (unfortunately, not programming language
[4]) will produce much more problems than any image filter or any Fox
News scam.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer#Internet_censorship
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerned_Women_for_America.
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Sarah Stierch-2
>
> Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
> Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
> English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
> don't ask for the filter explicitly. As members of that organization
> probably don't know any other language except English, everybody will
> be happy. Except the core editors of English Wikipedia, of course. But
> Board doesn't care about them, anyway; which means that English
> Wikipedia is reasonable scapegoat for Wikimedia movement to please
> sexually impaired Americans and others.
>
>
I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist"
who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the
referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually
impaired" - is beyond sexist.  Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your
post.

I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
> for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
> participate into the "Next steps" [3]! Holy Thing! That will produce
> much more sexual content than any "porn" photo on Commons. In Serbian
> we say for that "fucking in healthy brain". If not exterminated at the
> beginning, that brainfuck (unfortunately, not programming language
> [4]) will produce much more problems than any image filter or any Fox
> News scam.
>
>
Voices are being heard who are against tacky bad sexualized images. The
group of people who support this "Commons is the dump of the sum of crappy
free photos for the world" way of thinking might be the loudest, but they
are the smallest in numbers, when it comes to English landscapes, from my
understanding. If people want to bombard us with more sexualized images,
we'll just keep fighting back. I can pay for my porn, I don't need it on
Commons.

The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this anti-sexualized
environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are
pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I think
you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
conservatives.

Sarah

--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist"
> who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the
> referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
> images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually
> impaired" - is beyond sexist.  Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your
> post.

I am feminist as well and contrary to my previous examples -- which
were male-exclusive -- I intentionally gave example of one female
organization. I see no problem in being sarcastic toward any gender
while it is consistent.

> Voices are being heard who are against tacky bad sexualized images. The
> group of people who support this "Commons is the dump of the sum of crappy
> free photos for the world" way of thinking might be the loudest, but they
> are the smallest in numbers, when it comes to English landscapes, from my
> understanding. If people want to bombard us with more sexualized images,
> we'll just keep fighting back. I can pay for my porn, I don't need it on
> Commons.

We don't talk here about crappy images, but about *any* image which
depicts nude body or sexual act for *educational* purposes.

> The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this anti-sexualized
> environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are
> pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I think
> you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> conservatives.

Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Sarah Stierch-2
>
> Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
>
>
No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
"educational and high quality."

My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
[[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
[[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening it.
I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
at work, take that as you will.

Sarah
who is totally grossed out by that photo on the vagina article,
gahhhhhhhhhhh, surely she can't be the only one!

--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Dan Rosenthal
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]>wrote:

> >
> > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> >
> >
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high quality."
>
You're saying that a picture of a stripper with her legs wide open can in no
way be educational and high quality? The undertone from this statement is
that "It would be better and less offensive if her legs were closed" which
to me highlights the censorship problem precisely.


>
> My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
> article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
> of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> it.
> I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
> at work, take that as you will.
>
This raises twin issues. First, it raises the presumption that you and your
boss's workplace ought to be the model for how people around the world
determine what they should or shouldn't see -- at home OR at work.

Second, it echoes my first paragraph that it makes a judgment call about the
appropriateness of a specific image based on the perceived "immoralness" or
"embarassment" of that image.


> "The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this
> anti-sexualized
> environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are
> pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I
> think
> you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> conservatives."


The above paragraph is one massive "Citations Needed", but that aside, it
misses the point.

"Many are...." carries with it that "some aren't."
"Some don't" implies that "some do."

In criticizing Milos for generalizing the opinions of one population, you
yourself are doing the exact same thing. We don't have that data, and I'm
sure if there WERE any it could be easily picked apart on methodological
issues. The broader lesson is that attempting to generalize a view on
morality to any populace is doomed to inaccuracy and failure.
 -Dan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Sarah Stierch-2
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 16:15, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high quality."

I really don't care about strippers. However, it would be quite
educationally to have short movies at least for the basic sexual
concepts. That includes hygiene of reproductive organs for example,
but some basic sexual positions, as well. And that would be much more
unacceptable to pro-censorship people than strippers.

> My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
> article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
> of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening it.
> I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
> at work, take that as you will.

[[penis]] is the wrong artcile. [[human penis]] is the right one ;)
Note that depictions of penises are the most numerous in the future
"sexual content" category. Our editor base is ~85% male and there are
plenty of them willing to show their sexual organ.

I understand that access to nudity is a problem in many occasions.
That's one of the problems of our civilization which sexual education
should fix. In the mean time, we have to find some solutions for that.
If you need it, contact me and I'll setup proxy for you and your boss
to freely watch Wikipedia articles without images. ... Here is,
actually, a number of options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Options_to_not_see_an_image

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Sarah Stierch-2
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Logically, we have the solution: If Board really cares what Concerned
>> Women for America think, let it, please, implement that filter on
>> English Wikipedia and leave the rest of the projects alone -- if they
>> don't ask for the filter explicitly. As members of that organization
>> probably don't know any other language except English, everybody will
>> be happy. Except the core editors of English Wikipedia, of course. But
>> Board doesn't care about them, anyway; which means that English
>> Wikipedia is reasonable scapegoat for Wikimedia movement to please
>> sexually impaired Americans and others.
>>
>>
> I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist"
> who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the
> referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
> images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually
> impaired" - is beyond sexist.  Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your
> post.

Thanks to Fred, I've realized that it seems that you misread my email.
My sarcastic example related to particular organization, not to
"concerned women/feminists from America". The organization is called
"Concerned Women for America" [1]. They started the whole drama in
2008 [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerned_Women_for_America
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer#Internet_censorship

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

David Richfield
In reply to this post by Sarah Stierch-2
Hey Milosh,

I think we all say things in private mails that we wouldn't post on
public lists.  If I posted any of a number of my private emails to our
office mailing list I'd be at risk of getting fired.  I think highly
of you, and I'm sure most of the people here do, even when they
disagree with you.

Anyway, to the issue:

I understand the attitude of being against censorship at any costs -
it is a very important fight.  But as H.L. Mencken said:

"Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the
exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority ..."

The thing is, even if a lot of Wikipedia is written by a disreputable
minority, we want it to go to the great masses.  I completely get what
Sarah is saying here: not everyone wants that hard uncompromising
focus on uncensored liberty: it's inconvenient in "polite society".

Sure, the image hiding feature is a compromise, but it's not a bad
one.  It's not intended to remove any images from Wikipedia, just to
allow users to make Wikipedia SFW (or SFL, depending on who you are)
as required, and is totally reversible, so I support it.

--
David Richfield

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Kim Bruning
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:31:52PM +0200, David Richfield wrote:
>  and is totally reversible, so I support it.
>

Yeah... about that. I propose a challenge to you too then.

I'm proposing to run a wiki server, emulating different scenarios with
the image filter and category system. The filter itself actually is
likely Mostly Harmless; at worst it'll likely stochastically reduce
admin effectivity. So for at least some of the scenarios, we won't
even run a filter on-wiki. ;-)

Now... the category scheme used by the filter, that's where life gets
interesting.

If you're convinced nothing can go wrong, you can join blue team. Of
course, I'll be playing on red team. }:-)>

#include evil_laughter.h;

Afterwards, we can swap, to see if the other team can hold blue.

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:30, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist"
>> who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the
>> referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
>> images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually
>> impaired" - is beyond sexist.  Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your
>> post.
>
> Thanks to Fred, I've realized that it seems that you misread my email.
> My sarcastic example related to particular organization, not to
> "concerned women/feminists from America". The organization is called
> "Concerned Women for America" [1]. They started the whole drama in
> 2008 [2].

And to be more precise: I can't have a position about your position if
I don't know it; thus I can't be sarcastic toward your position.
However, the position of the Concerned Women for America is well
described and I can be sarcastic about it. That doesn't include just
their position toward sexually explicit content.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
The question shouldn't be about who is right - whether it is good that
certain images are not considered "safe for work" - we are not in a position
to change the opinion of society, and we shouldn't want to be in such
position either.

The discussion however should be, if at all, about whether we want to offer
people the option to view content in such environments without being
constantly on their guard for what content might pop up. Do we want to offer
people to tweak the images of Wikipedia in such a way that it suits their
life style, that they can use Wikipedia where and when they would want to?

The board clearly answered that question with yes. Do you think it is better
to force people to choose between watching an article with an image they do
not want to see, and not seeing the article at all?

Lodewijk

Am 6. September 2011 16:44 schrieb Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> > >
> > >
> > No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> > keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> > "educational and high quality."
> >
> You're saying that a picture of a stripper with her legs wide open can in
> no
> way be educational and high quality? The undertone from this statement is
> that "It would be better and less offensive if her legs were closed" which
> to me highlights the censorship problem precisely.
>
>
> >
> > My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the
> pregnancy
> > article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> > [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face
> photo
> > of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> > [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> > it.
> > I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> > exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these
> articles
> > at work, take that as you will.
> >
> This raises twin issues. First, it raises the presumption that you and your
> boss's workplace ought to be the model for how people around the world
> determine what they should or shouldn't see -- at home OR at work.
>
> Second, it echoes my first paragraph that it makes a judgment call about
> the
> appropriateness of a specific image based on the perceived "immoralness" or
> "embarassment" of that image.
>
>
> > "The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this
> > anti-sexualized
> > environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many
> are
> > pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> > other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I
> > think
> > you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> > supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> > conservatives."
>
>
> The above paragraph is one massive "Citations Needed", but that aside, it
> misses the point.
>
> "Many are...." carries with it that "some aren't."
> "Some don't" implies that "some do."
>
> In criticizing Milos for generalizing the opinions of one population, you
> yourself are doing the exact same thing. We don't have that data, and I'm
> sure if there WERE any it could be easily picked apart on methodological
> issues. The broader lesson is that attempting to generalize a view on
> morality to any populace is doomed to inaccuracy and failure.
>  -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Kim Bruning
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:51:40PM +0200, Lodewijk wrote:
> The question shouldn't [...] be about whether we want to
> offer [...] people [...] Wikipedia? [*]
>
>  Do you think it is better to force people to choose between
>  watching an article with an image they do not want to see,
>  and not seeing the article at all?

Well, if you put it that way, then yes,  very much better. ;-)

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

[*] Case in point. ;-)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Kim Bruning
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:31:52PM +0200, David Richfield wrote:
>>  and is totally reversible, so I support it.
>>
>
> Yeah... about that. I propose a challenge to you too then.
>
> I'm proposing to run a wiki server, emulating different scenarios with
> the image filter and category system. The filter itself actually is
> likely Mostly Harmless; at worst it'll likely stochastically reduce
> admin effectivity. So for at least some of the scenarios, we won't
> even run a filter on-wiki. ;-)
>
> Now... the category scheme used by the filter, that's where life gets
> interesting.
>
> If you're convinced nothing can go wrong, you can join blue team. Of
> course, I'll be playing on red team. }:-)>
>
> #include evil_laughter.h;
>
> Afterwards, we can swap, to see if the other team can hold blue.

I find this argument very unconvincing.

wikis are predicated on the belief that there are more people willing
to do good than bad, that they are highly protective of their
collective work, they are smarter and better organised, and all they
need to win the battles (as well as the war ..) is slightly more
advanced tools... like the block button.

add a mix of abusefilter, flagged revs, semi-protection, etc., and we
can slow down changes to the categorisation system and respond quickly
to attacks.  It wont be much different than template vandalism.

in short, game on Kim. ;-)

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Kim Bruning
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 02:55:43AM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> wikis are predicated on the belief that there are more people willing
> to do good than bad, that they are highly protective of their
> collective work, they are smarter and better organised, and all they
> need to win the battles (as well as the war ..) is slightly more
> advanced tools... like the block button.

Right! And IMHO the image filter introduces novel elements for which those
beliefs need not hold. I think there are ways to get a crowbar in.

> in short, game on Kim. ;-)

I like your attitude! :-D

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by David Richfield
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:31, David Richfield <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I understand the attitude of being against censorship at any costs -
> it is a very important fight.  But as H.L. Mencken said:
>
> "Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the
> exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority ..."
>
> The thing is, even if a lot of Wikipedia is written by a disreputable
> minority, we want it to go to the great masses.  I completely get what
> Sarah is saying here: not everyone wants that hard uncompromising
> focus on uncensored liberty: it's inconvenient in "polite society".
>
> Sure, the image hiding feature is a compromise, but it's not a bad
> one.  It's not intended to remove any images from Wikipedia, just to
> allow users to make Wikipedia SFW (or SFL, depending on who you are)
> as required, and is totally reversible, so I support it.

There are two separate issues: The first one, with which I agree, is
that image filter is not a big deal.

The second one is a meta question and it's related to our position
inside of the contemporary civilization.

Modern Western civilization has been built on the premise that just
particularly harmful works should be censored, if any at all; and if
censored, they are usually accessible in libraries, but couldn't be
[re]printed.

We are living in the age significantly different to just ~10-15 years
ago; exactly because internet and Wikipedia. Even "particularly
harmful works" could be found on internet. Consequently, the question
for us is: should we define Wikipedia as encyclopedia/library of
classical modernity or we should define it as unique global
phenomenon, just [remotely] connected to the concepts of encyclopedia
and library.

Those are, actually, two confronted concepts behind this debate. Those
who want to keep Wikipedia inside of its encyclopedic and librarian,
modernist frame, oppose to censorship, even in lite form, as this
image filter. Others, who see Wikipedia as unique (better, "not
defined phenomenon, yet") and treat it as contemporary postmodernist
project without clear borders -- tend to accept various ways of social
influences in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.

While both positions seem legitimate, the problem with the second one
is that Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia, which
ideologically belongs to the modern period. There is no such thing as
"postmodern encyclopedia" as well as there is no "postmodern science".
There are postmodern art, postmodern concepts, postmodern philosophy,
but there is no postmodern science, as science requires exact methods,
which is opposite to the conceptual relativism (i.e., there are no
many truths, there could be just different positions toward some
issue; not counting possible sophisms and scientifically unknown).

The other, "the unique", "the unknown" thing is not Wikipedia nor
Wikisource etc.; the other thing is our movement. And it could
incorporate many different cultures, as well as it could be postmodern
by nature. That's the social issue and social relations are not
necessarily exact, scientific; quite opposite, they usually have
strong irrational color. And that's good and normal, as that
irrational part of us gives meaning to our lives.

In relation to those concepts, the question is where the border
between our rational and irrational is. For example, user interface
doesn't belong to the rational (although it has to be constructed
rationally). It should be easy to use, which could be quantified, but
which is not our rational choice, but our irrational feeling.

Because of that I don't oppose to the image filter, as it belongs to
the irrational part of the content (unlike deleting images, for
example). I would like to see the world full of bold people who don't
afraid to take a look into some image because of religious prejudices,
but I am not the person who should decide that instead of them. So,
without the context, image filter sounds acceptable to me.

However, the main part of the problem is not about freedom of choice,
but about mismanagement which tends to be spread into the chronic
movement agony.

I was serious when I asked the Board to take the action *now*. If they
were bold enough to make decision opposed by majority of core editors,
they should be bold enough to conclude it. Let them implement it ASAP
on English Wikipedia and conclude this drama. The present question is
not how to avoid confrontation -- as confrontation already exists --
the question is what's better: to have mid-level confrontation for
years or to push the issue as soon as possible, have higher level of
drama for a short period of time and to have low to insignificant
level of confrontation in the future. I think that prolonged mid-level
confrontation for more than a couple of months (and it already lasts
for a couple of months) would be very harmful for the community and
movement. The only other non-harmful (or not a lot harmful) option is
to forget everything.

Counting that Board wants to go forward with this, it should ASAP make
the resolution consisted of this or similar sentence: Board has
decided to implement image filter on English Wikipedia and give the
option to other projects to adopt the filter if they want it.

That's not so hard and it's on the line of Board's wishes.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Béria Lima
In reply to this post by Sarah Stierch-2
>
> *My boss (...) can't open the pregnancy article at work because the intro
> is NSFW our workplace.
> *


I'm sorry but i don't find the problem in this article.

*I can't open the [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really
> in your face photo of a vagina when you open it up
> *


The article is about vagina. The only picture there who might be "NSFW" is
this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azvag.jpg who only shows
what are the anatomy of a vagina. I find very educational.

And BTW, if you don't want to see a vagina, don't open the article.

*who is totally grossed out by that photo on the vagina article,
> gahhhhhhhhhhh, surely she can't be the only one!
> *


No it was not. There are in fact a category in commons (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vagina ) and in that category i
found the image who replaced the Image you dislike so
much<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_vulva_with_visible_vaginal_opening.jpg>.
But not because you don't like, because the one in the article now is more
clear.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*


On 6 September 2011 15:15, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> >
> >
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high quality."
>
> My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the pregnancy
> article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face photo
> of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> it.
> I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these articles
> at work, take that as you will.
>
> Sarah
> who is totally grossed out by that photo on the vagina article,
> gahhhhhhhhhhh, surely she can't be the only one!
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
> Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
> for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
> participate into the "Next steps" [3]

Milos, I think you're stepping out to the backyard there.  I'm probably
one of the more vocal (and arguably acerbic) opponents of that entire
filter idea, and the fact that (at least some members of) the board is
actually willing to now listen to concerns is a _good_ thing.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Béria Lima
I think it is obvious that some people will have a problem with those
images, and others don't. Apparently Sarah is (justified or not - that
doesn't matter) under the impression that it would not be appreciated at her
work if she would open such images there. That she has this impression is a
fact. That she is because of that unable to access the textual contents of
the article is also a fact.

The question in place is now - should Sarah, if she wants to, be enabled to
selectively filter out images so that she can browse on Wikipedia without
worrying too much about whether the next page will contain an image that
people on her workplace would find inappropriate?

Of course people are allowed to have all kind of opinions on this - I heard
Kim (and others of an alledged vocal minority) saying very clearly "no",
even though he found it necessary to twist my words for that. And the board
clearly said yes.

Lodewijk

Am 6. September 2011 22:45 schrieb Béria Lima <[hidden email]>:

> >
> > *My boss (...) can't open the pregnancy article at work because the intro
> > is NSFW our workplace.
> > *
>
>
> I'm sorry but i don't find the problem in this article.
>
> *I can't open the [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really
> > in your face photo of a vagina when you open it up
> > *
>
>
> The article is about vagina. The only picture there who might be "NSFW" is
> this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azvag.jpg who only shows
> what are the anatomy of a vagina. I find very educational.
>
> And BTW, if you don't want to see a vagina, don't open the article.
>
> *who is totally grossed out by that photo on the vagina article,
> > gahhhhhhhhhhh, surely she can't be the only one!
> > *
>
>
> No it was not. There are in fact a category in commons (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vagina ) and in that category i
> found the image who replaced the Image you dislike so
> much<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_vulva_with_visible_vaginal_opening.jpg
> >.
> But not because you don't like, because the one in the article now is more
> clear.
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
> <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre
> acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
> fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*
>
>
> On 6 September 2011 15:15, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> > >
> > >
> > No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> > keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> > "educational and high quality."
> >
> > My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the
> pregnancy
> > article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> > [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face
> photo
> > of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> > [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> > it.
> > I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> > exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these
> articles
> > at work, take that as you will.
> >
> > Sarah
> > who is totally grossed out by that photo on the vagina article,
> > gahhhhhhhhhhh, surely she can't be the only one!
> >
> > --
> > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
> > Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> > Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> > and
> > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Marc-Andre
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 03:34, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
>> for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
>> participate into the "Next steps" [3]
>
> Milos, I think you're stepping out to the backyard there.  I'm probably
> one of the more vocal (and arguably acerbic) opponents of that entire
> filter idea, and the fact that (at least some members of) the board is
> actually willing to now listen to concerns is a _good_ thing.

I think that damage produced by this <whatever> should be localized.
The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in
other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means
that it should be localized on English Wikipedia.

By stating that it will affect just English Wikipedia and just other
projects which explicitly said that they want that filter, many
concerns would be addressed.

After that, significant period of time will have to pass up to the
filter implementation and there will be plenty of time for discussing
about particular details.

Without that localization, we have now serious problems:
* It is not yet clear would that filter be implemented or not. Board
said "yes", but, obviously, Censorship committee didn't recommend its
implementation. That question requires simple yes/no answer and
someone should make that decision. Note that even the most moderate
regulations of sexually explicit images doesn't have chance to pass
any community confidence [1]. At the other side, Board wants that and
there are just two options for the Board: to say yes or to say no. Any
of the answers is better sooner than later: "no" would finish the
drama; "yes" would intensify it for a couple of days and then the
discussion about details could be continued. Otherwise, more emotions
would be involved and as "yes" is likely to be the answer, just more
people would be more frustrated with the outcome.
* Strong opposition inside of the second-largest community. If not
addressed immediately, referendums like that one on German Wikipedia
could be sparked all over the projects and we would have just more
problems.
* Note that the whole thing around image filter is not well understood
out of US and Australia. The most of the world knows to live with
"rouge images" and censorship isn't usually imposed by people
themselves, but by governments. Including others in internal issues of
US society triggers just more emotional reactions.

We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
project. If that time and energy was spent on rewriting Parser, we
would have WYSIWYG editor a year or two ago.

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_6#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

David Gerard-2
On 7 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
> Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
> better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
> project. If that time and energy was spent on rewriting Parser, we
> would have WYSIWYG editor a year or two ago.


Although I broadly agree with the rest of your message, I disagree
with the Parser bit on the end - basically, the parser rewrite had to
pass muster with someone at Brion or Tim level, as there's not really
anyone else who would be able to say "these bits of syntax are out"
and have it stick; and since I suspect Tim would rather spork his eyes
out than read the words "parser rewrite" ever again, getting Brion in
to work on it was the only way to make it go forward. Developer effort
is not fungible in the face of politics :-)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345