8 ms·

Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge

16 points by gibsonf1 16y ago

Osiris 16y ago
I'm not sure I understand why the admins got so upset about it. If, in fact, Wikimedia Commons was hosting illegal images, why shouldn't the foundation take actions to ensure they were removed?
- sp332 16y ago
  He wasn't removing illegal images, he set out to remove anything that might make Wikipedia look bad to donors.
  - cmelbye 16y ago
    Wikipedia looking bad in the eyes of donors would be catastrophic considering the Wikimedia Foundation's sole source of revenue is donations.
    - jarek 16y ago
      Now, I am a self-professed idealist sometimes, but it strikes me that what would really be catastrophic would be an encyclopedia altering their content solely in response to a moral hysteria whipped up by a partisan media organization (regardless of their affiliation).
      - sp332 16y ago
        At least they're not allowing donors to change facts, like this "history" project is doing: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1502076070/mondo-2000-an-open-source-history http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1502076070/mondo-2000-an... (check out the prizes on the right-hand side).
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - alexandros 16y ago
      I thought the idea of getting donations instead of having ads was to avoid the theoretical possibility of altering the content. If indeed this is related to donor perception you might as well rely on ads, which are not certain to alter the content AND will make Wikimedia a financial powerhouse able to pursue multiple other projects. Although I must confess that at this stage, the thought of Jimmy Wales commanding a billion dollar empire does not necessarily excite me.
- barrkel 16y ago
  Why do you make an assumption that these images are illegal? Photographs of genitalia are not necessarily pornography, much less illegal or obscene. The hysteria that Fox seems to be trying to whip up is that children in school might learn about sex.
  - Alex63 16y ago
    Osiris didn't say the images were illegal - Osiris asked whether the foundation had a right/obligation to remove the images "if, in fact," they were illegal. Seems like no one can say, at this point, whether the images were or were not illegal, since that question has not been decided by a court.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      To clear this up (and as I mentioned on the original article): No, these images are not illegal. IANAL - but I am one better, someone who grades such images for court. [on the issue raised; clearly the foundation does have a right/obligation to remove illegal images. Indeed even if they suspect them to be illegal. However any expert they could have found would have told them they are fine. I think the uprising is more against the impression that the foundation has bowed to their sponsors rather than take a realist/rational approach]
jarek 16y ago
It's an interesting topic, but could we find a better source than Fox News?
- hga 16y ago
  To the extent Fox New coverage of this has been driving any of it it's an important source. That's been reported and I think their contacting sponsors is a matter of record. The article also seems to be accurate and exhaustive, maybe even fair and balanced ^_^.
  - jarek 16y ago
    To say that "[t]hose images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27" is disingenuous considering Larry Sanger has been ringing this bell for quite a while now. To say "... the images, which legal analysts say may violate pornography and obscenity laws" is border-line FUDish. Even something like "there is no agreement among legal analysts whether or not some of the images violate pornography and obscenity laws" would be better. It would be nice if they would get some experts to go on record and explain their reasoning, but I'm truly not expecting that much. To say "images ... that could be considered child pornography" is a smear. If they want to call it CP, or get an expert to go on record as calling it CP, go for it -- but don't hide behind the "could" while invoking a moral panic.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions and are perfectly legal in some others. The US may be one of the borderline cases.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        > They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions Not in any particularly relevant to this situation.
  - 16y ago
cmelbye 16y ago
Perfect example of how ridiculous the power structure is on Wikipedia. Administrators of the site seem to think that they must be consulted before the Wikimedia board can do anything. The Wikipedia community has some serious problems.
hugh3 16y ago
I'm confused. Exactly which images are at issue here? It appears that the images originally complained about were the drawings of "child pornography" which were supposedly on Wikimedia Commons.But does it extend to the more encyclopaedically justifiable (though still occasionally somewhat gratuitous) photos which illustrate relevant articles on wikipedia? Incidentally, I think wikipedia deserves credit for being one of the few places proudly exhibiting pictures of Muhammad.
not_the_same 16y ago
Looks like Fox has played the Drama Monger card. Good move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DramaMongerTCGproposal.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DramaMongerTCGproposal.png

16 points by gibsonf1 16y ago

I'm not sure I understand why the admins got so upset about it. If, in fact, Wikimedia Commons was hosting illegal images, why shouldn't the foundation take actions to ensure they were removed?

sp332 16y ago
He wasn't removing illegal images, he set out to remove anything that might make Wikipedia look bad to donors.
- cmelbye 16y ago
  Wikipedia looking bad in the eyes of donors would be catastrophic considering the Wikimedia Foundation's sole source of revenue is donations.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Now, I am a self-professed idealist sometimes, but it strikes me that what would really be catastrophic would be an encyclopedia altering their content solely in response to a moral hysteria whipped up by a partisan media organization (regardless of their affiliation).
    - sp332 16y ago
      At least they're not allowing donors to change facts, like this "history" project is doing: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1502076070/mondo-2000-an-open-source-history http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1502076070/mondo-2000-an... (check out the prizes on the right-hand side).
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - alexandros 16y ago
    I thought the idea of getting donations instead of having ads was to avoid the theoretical possibility of altering the content. If indeed this is related to donor perception you might as well rely on ads, which are not certain to alter the content AND will make Wikimedia a financial powerhouse able to pursue multiple other projects. Although I must confess that at this stage, the thought of Jimmy Wales commanding a billion dollar empire does not necessarily excite me.
barrkel 16y ago
Why do you make an assumption that these images are illegal? Photographs of genitalia are not necessarily pornography, much less illegal or obscene. The hysteria that Fox seems to be trying to whip up is that children in school might learn about sex.
- Alex63 16y ago
  Osiris didn't say the images were illegal - Osiris asked whether the foundation had a right/obligation to remove the images "if, in fact," they were illegal. Seems like no one can say, at this point, whether the images were or were not illegal, since that question has not been decided by a court.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    To clear this up (and as I mentioned on the original article): No, these images are not illegal. IANAL - but I am one better, someone who grades such images for court. [on the issue raised; clearly the foundation does have a right/obligation to remove illegal images. Indeed even if they suspect them to be illegal. However any expert they could have found would have told them they are fine. I think the uprising is more against the impression that the foundation has bowed to their sponsors rather than take a realist/rational approach]

jarek 16y ago

It's an interesting topic, but could we find a better source than Fox News?

hga 16y ago
To the extent Fox New coverage of this has been driving any of it it's an important source. That's been reported and I think their contacting sponsors is a matter of record. The article also seems to be accurate and exhaustive, maybe even fair and balanced ^_^.
- jarek 16y ago
  To say that "[t]hose images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27" is disingenuous considering Larry Sanger has been ringing this bell for quite a while now. To say "... the images, which legal analysts say may violate pornography and obscenity laws" is border-line FUDish. Even something like "there is no agreement among legal analysts whether or not some of the images violate pornography and obscenity laws" would be better. It would be nice if they would get some experts to go on record and explain their reasoning, but I'm truly not expecting that much. To say "images ... that could be considered child pornography" is a smear. If they want to call it CP, or get an expert to go on record as calling it CP, go for it -- but don't hide behind the "could" while invoking a moral panic.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions and are perfectly legal in some others. The US may be one of the borderline cases.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      > They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions Not in any particularly relevant to this situation.
- 16y ago

cmelbye 16y ago

Perfect example of how ridiculous the power structure is on Wikipedia. Administrators of the site seem to think that they must be consulted before the Wikimedia board can do anything. The Wikipedia community has some serious problems.

hugh3 16y ago

I'm confused. Exactly which images are at issue here? It appears that the images originally complained about were the drawings of "child pornography" which were supposedly on Wikimedia Commons.But does it extend to the more encyclopaedically justifiable (though still occasionally somewhat gratuitous) photos which illustrate relevant articles on wikipedia? Incidentally, I think wikipedia deserves credit for being one of the few places proudly exhibiting pictures of Muhammad.

not_the_same 16y ago

Looks like Fox has played the Drama Monger card. Good move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DramaMongerTCGproposal.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DramaMongerTCGproposal.png