3 ms·

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

by jarek 17y ago

hga 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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 17y ago
      > They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions Not in any particularly relevant to this situation.
- Zak 17y ago
  I see no problems with the article. What I do find problematic is Fox contacting Wikimedia sponsors "for comment". It seems to me that they were actually trying to apply pressure, which is not at all proper behavior for a news organization.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Accurate and exhaustive? I suppose you could apply those words in this context but the article sets off my BS detector in a huge way, reminds me of my old hometown paper when their editor was insulted at some dinner the previous week. EXCLUSIVE: Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge ... oh wait it turns out that the huge shakeup was some privelege change that was done a long time ago, and some extremely mild quotes from a "source" Then we have these gems: Those images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27. ... On May 7, FoxNews.com reported exclusively that Wales had personally deleted many of the images from Wikimedia's servers ... The debate heated up when FoxNews.com began contacting high profile corporations and foundations that have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Best Buy, USA Networks, Craigslist, Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute. What the fuck is Fox News' problem with Wikipedia?
sp332 17y ago
Actually no, since Fox News precipitated the event. FTA: >The debate heated up when FoxNews.com began contacting high profile corporations and foundations that have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Best Buy, USA Networks, Craigslist, Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute. >...["think of the children" argument]... >When the donors started calling, Wales immediately called on the sites’ editors to quickly purge any possibly obscene or pornographic content from the sites.
- w1ntermute 17y ago
  But should someone involved in the incident be the one reporting on it?
- neilk 17y ago
  So Fox News is the best source because they're the ones creating the story? Are you being ironic? Hey, I'm not an expert, but does calling up major supporters with incendiary allegations strike you as the behavior of a news organization? Are they doing this to bring important information to the public? I work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not speak for the organization -- I'm just a programmer -- but these are my own impressions. First, I've heard from our press guy that Fox News hasn't called the WMF once for any comment on this story. Also, the atmosphere in the office isn't exactly "chaos", as the article alleges. Lots of other business is proceeding normally, like the revamp of the Wikipedia interface that went live last week. I'm just a hired hand, and not much of an expert on the Wiki* communities, but it seems to me that Fox News is reigniting an existing debate about how to manage the tiny, tiny minority of Wikimedia Commons images that could cause offense to people. We're talking about a website where the biggest news of last month was that some guy donated his collection of images of rocks and minerals. Jimmy Wales decided to do a purge on his own authority, but was widely criticized for overshooting what was needed. This provoked another meta-debate about founder authority. So he voluntarily gave up his "founder flag" rights, so the debate could get back on track. There's been a lot of very frank discussion, which is how Wikimedia lists are all the time, but Fox News is focusing on only the divisive aspects, which are already way out of date in my opinion. Some (not all) community members who were very vocally displeased a few days ago are now happier with how things are proceeding. And are back contributing to the main work of the site, you know, that whole free knowledge thing. And that's where things sit as of this moment, to my knowledge. People are still working out what changes to practices are necessary.

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

by jarek 17y ago

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

hga 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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 17y ago
    > They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions Not in any particularly relevant to this situation.
Zak 17y ago
I see no problems with the article. What I do find problematic is Fox contacting Wikimedia sponsors "for comment". It seems to me that they were actually trying to apply pressure, which is not at all proper behavior for a news organization.
jbooth 17y ago
Accurate and exhaustive? I suppose you could apply those words in this context but the article sets off my BS detector in a huge way, reminds me of my old hometown paper when their editor was insulted at some dinner the previous week. EXCLUSIVE: Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge ... oh wait it turns out that the huge shakeup was some privelege change that was done a long time ago, and some extremely mild quotes from a "source" Then we have these gems: Those images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27. ... On May 7, FoxNews.com reported exclusively that Wales had personally deleted many of the images from Wikimedia's servers ... The debate heated up when FoxNews.com began contacting high profile corporations and foundations that have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Best Buy, USA Networks, Craigslist, Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute. What the fuck is Fox News' problem with Wikipedia?

sp332 17y ago

Actually no, since Fox News precipitated the event. FTA: >The debate heated up when FoxNews.com began contacting high profile corporations and foundations that have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Best Buy, USA Networks, Craigslist, Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute. >...["think of the children" argument]... >When the donors started calling, Wales immediately called on the sites’ editors to quickly purge any possibly obscene or pornographic content from the sites.

w1ntermute 17y ago
But should someone involved in the incident be the one reporting on it?
neilk 17y ago
So Fox News is the best source because they're the ones creating the story? Are you being ironic? Hey, I'm not an expert, but does calling up major supporters with incendiary allegations strike you as the behavior of a news organization? Are they doing this to bring important information to the public? I work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not speak for the organization -- I'm just a programmer -- but these are my own impressions. First, I've heard from our press guy that Fox News hasn't called the WMF once for any comment on this story. Also, the atmosphere in the office isn't exactly "chaos", as the article alleges. Lots of other business is proceeding normally, like the revamp of the Wikipedia interface that went live last week. I'm just a hired hand, and not much of an expert on the Wiki* communities, but it seems to me that Fox News is reigniting an existing debate about how to manage the tiny, tiny minority of Wikimedia Commons images that could cause offense to people. We're talking about a website where the biggest news of last month was that some guy donated his collection of images of rocks and minerals. Jimmy Wales decided to do a purge on his own authority, but was widely criticized for overshooting what was needed. This provoked another meta-debate about founder authority. So he voluntarily gave up his "founder flag" rights, so the debate could get back on track. There's been a lot of very frank discussion, which is how Wikimedia lists are all the time, but Fox News is focusing on only the divisive aspects, which are already way out of date in my opinion. Some (not all) community members who were very vocally displeased a few days ago are now happier with how things are proceeding. And are back contributing to the main work of the site, you know, that whole free knowledge thing. And that's where things sit as of this moment, to my knowledge. People are still working out what changes to practices are necessary.