[Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Kim Bruning

Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.

        http://www.themarysue.com/tv-tropes-rape-articles/

In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It
somehow feels soviet. :-/

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning


--

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Kim Bruning
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a
> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.

The wiki-community is apparantly working on it:
        http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident

TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how
they go about solving their issues here.


sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Kim Bruning
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a
> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>

And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.

We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers
and focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for
information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine
is the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of
madness.

-- Coren / Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Kim Bruning
As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up
with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and
creepier.

---o0o---

@ Marq FJA

Eddie tends to be a little abrupt in his explanations.

The gist of it is that rape (much like sex and other similar topics) have
become difficult to moderate across such a huge wiki.

Banning rape is probably the way to go, at least given the current
situation and as a temporary solution, but the only real way to deal with
the underlying problem is to implement better rules, enlarge the mod team,
and have stricter moderation.

There are unfortunately very creepy users around the wiki, but give it half
a year or more of harsher-than-usual moderation, and the wiki will become
easier to handle in that aspect.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13337475620A51675000&page=17#410

---o0o---

These are generic problems, and Wikimedia is not free of them.



On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:55PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
> been forced to censor a
> > number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>
> The wiki-community is apparantly working on it:
>
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident
>
> TVTropes is not a WMF wiki, but it's still interesting to follow how
> they go about solving their issues here.
>
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

geni
In reply to this post by Kim Bruning
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It
> somehow feels soviet. :-/

A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for
the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to
enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made
explosive tropes are not affected.


--
geni

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Kim Bruning
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:41:04PM +0100, geni wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our movies. It
> > somehow feels soviet. :-/
>
> A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for
> the most part I just feel sorry for the people who are meant to
> enforce the new rules. On the other hand I note that home made
> explosive tropes are not affected.

TvTropes and en.wp have different foci, so that should not surprise
anyone. (else there wouldn't need to be 2 different wikis)

That said, a number of the expunged topics (eg. movies, books, etc) do
appear to overlap with articles on en.wp, where they are discussed in
our typical dry manner.

(This from a small sample, and they're still working at it, so
ymmv)


sincerely,
        Kim Bruning



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

geni
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 26 June 2012 20:30, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up
> with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and
> creepier.


Its more complicated than that. Apart from anything else TVTropes have
been drifting in the direction  of being less lively and more
straitlaced for some time. Clearing out the adult stuff is just part
of the ongoing pattern.

--
geni

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Marc-Andre
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
>
> We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers and
> focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for
> information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is
> the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of madness.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
"That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Nathan Awrich
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has
> been
> >> forced to censor a
> >> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
> >>
> >
> > And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> > highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> > donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> > notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.
> >
> > We are, like it or not, in a society increasingly driven by marketeers
> and
> > focus groups; being at the mercy of entities who care nothing for
> > information or knowledge so long as their precious *image* is pristine is
> > the norm, and Wikipedia remains a bastion of sanity in that sea of
> madness.
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>

Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between Wikipedia
and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not make
comparisons between the two apples to apples.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Marc-Andre
On 26/06/2012 3:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between
> Wikipedia and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform does not
> make comparisons between the two apples to apples.

No, but that's besides the point.  The point is simple:  if you rely on
advertisers to survive, they get a hammer to use against you if you
deviate from their message -- whathever that message might be.

-- Coren / Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>


I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
the point ...) just underscore that.

That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring
to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of
neutrality aside":

---o0o---

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to
call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard
O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.

...

Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills
aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned
would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and
others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time
Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online
encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict
copyright enforcement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-extradition-stopped?newsfeed=true

---o0o---

Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
pages down, are Google.

That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Kim Bruning
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
> an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
> around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
> the point ...) just underscore that.

The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. (It's the old
freedom to swing your fists where you wish, versus limiting the arc to
avoid my nose discussion; aka BSD vs GPL; aka "do what you want", vs "do
unto others";  etc. (incidentally, is there a general term for this 100% freedom
vs -except not allowed to take away freedom- rule?))

It might be useful to try to correct newspapers if they state we set
aside our neutrality. It was precisely our neutrality that was at stake!

Of course if Jimmy wants to do other political things, he should be a
bit careful to either explain to everyone why it's necessary for the
foundation and/or explain that he's doing it independently and his views
do not nescessarily reflect the views of the board, etc etc. I hope he's
doing that consistently. Are you saying that maybe he hasn't?

> Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
> pages down, are Google.
> That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.

Hmmm. I think WMF talks with different departments at Google than TV
Tropes does. It might be useful to enquire?


sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
>> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
>> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>>
>
>
> I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
> an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
> around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
> the point ...) just underscore that.

I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.

Similarly, Jimbo is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants on
behalf of whoever the hell he wants, just like any of us would be.
Being associated with Wikimedia doesn't mean he must personally remain
neutral on things, that's only required of him when he edits.


> That's how the press see it, too -- even the supportive press -- referring
> to "political interventions", and "setting the vaunted principle of
> neutrality aside":
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has made a rare *political intervention* to
> call on Theresa May to stop the extradition of British student Richard
> O'Dwyer to the US for alleged copyright offences.

NPOV does not and has never stated "Wikipedia contributors should be
neutral on everything at all times, whether on or off wiki." It
prohibits editors from editorializing in articles, but it's new to me
that it prohibits them from editing in the editorial section of the
newspaper. Jimmy has every right to contribute his opinion to a
political debate in an appropriate forum, and that's an appropriate
forum.


> Wales was at the forefront of the campaign against the Sopa and Pipa bills
> aimed at enforcing online copyright more vigorously, which many warned
> would threaten sites at the core of the internet: Google, Wikipedia and
> others. With other senior editors, Wales *set aside for the first time
> Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality*, blacking out the online
> encyclopedia for a day as a warning of the consequences of too-strict
> copyright enforcement.

Poor journalism once again. NPOV never states that WMF must remain
neutral, or as above, the fundraising banners would've violated that
long ago, so nothing needed to be "set aside". It says -articles- must
remain neutral. Articles, not something else.

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/24/wikipedia-founder-richard-odwyer-extradition-stopped?newsfeed=true
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take the
> pages down, are Google.
>
> That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to Wikimedia.

True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our
donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what
Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would
be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know
that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that
their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very
little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.

It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if
that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very
significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again,
Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking
ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers,
or an ad provider.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Marc-Andre
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.

Wow! Indeed! Someone somewhere bowed for something to advertizers!!!!!
Of course, if we would have had advertizing, we would also have bowed
for them after they of course would have had similar demands. Is
Wikipedia also going to remove rape articles if people are saying they
will not donate if we do not? No way. Why can we tell that to donators
and not to advertizers?

--
André Engels, [hidden email]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
> the
> > pages down, are Google.
> >
> > That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
> Wikimedia.
>
> True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and Bar or we'll pull our
> donations," WMF would go straight to the media, get in triple what
> Google contributes from sympathy/outrage donations, and Google would
> be pilloried. And Google's not dumb--they know that. They also know
> that Wikipedia significantly enhances their search results, and that
> their donations to WMF are getting them a very good thing for very
> little investment. The chances are very slim they'd jeopardize that.
>


Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something,
and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors. And if
they agreed to whatever it is, then the press would just happen to report a
few weeks later that Brin has donated half a million to Wikipedia. And if
WMF refused whatever Google wanted, then there simply wouldn't be an
announcement of a Google donation to that amount at the next fundraiser.

No one in the press would "pillory" Google for not donating half a million
that year. After all, no one is obliged to donate to Wikimedia, including
Google.



> It's unfortunate that TVTropes didn't do the same thing. I imagine, if
> that hit the tech press, they would've found themselves getting a very
> significant amount of support (both financial and moral), and again,
> Google would've gotten pilloried and had to back off. But not taking
> ads means we don't have to be dependent on the whims of advertisers,
> or an ad provider.



Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried
for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
> the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
> into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
> to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
> abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.


It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried
> for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
>

Oops, that slashdot report is from November 2010, and refers to the last
time Google put TV Tropes under pressure. My apologies. It doesn't look
like that 2010 slashdot story ever became mainstream news.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> > entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> > itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> > whether or not people should make donations to the WMF, and utilizes
> > the project (through banners) to that end. However, they do not go put
> > into the article [[Wikimedia Foundation]] a line that says "Donating
> > to WMF is great, go do it!" Similarly, we never once advocated
> > abandoning neutrality on the [[SOPA]] article.
>
>
> It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
> neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
> doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
> reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
> that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.




And I still don't understand where all those IPs and single-purpose
accounts voting for the blackout came from, or why administrators were
directed to let their votes stand, when we regularly exclude such votes
from far less important community discussions.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

geni
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted something,
> and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
> they'd talk to Jimbo and other WMF luminaries behind closed doors.

You've been hanging out on wikipedia critics forums too much. Like
most of them you don't appear to realise to what extent wikipedians
tend to be bloody minded individualists. Cutting a deal with "WMF
luminaries" or any other cabal you care to propose simply isn't a
viable approach.

--
geni

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

Bjoern Hoehrmann
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
* Nathan wrote:
>It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
>project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
>political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
>neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
>doesn't corrupt the principle of neutrality generally or imperil the
>reputation of the project, etc. But it's impossible to rationally argue
>that the SOPA/PIPA protest didn't temporarily set aside neutrality.

"Neutrality" is an "article" concept, not a "project" concept and the
protest did not change articles, it rendered them hard to access and
different content was rendered in their stead, and that fact was very
obvious. If the "project" was "neutral", in the sense the concept is
defined for articles, it would be defined be how it is seen by others.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
123