|
|
farmercuerden (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} farmercuerden) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2010-05-10 22:25:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Jimbo Wales vs. Fox News: The predictable result.
Well, Wankas, it's time to wrap up this sorry mess. When last we left this probably-on-the-wrong-community-(oops!)-b
So, we begin with the big reveal: after edit warring to keep the images deleted, he finally stated why: Fox News was about to attack Wikipedia:
On the "Foundation-l" mailing list:
[That it was Fox specifically is clarified elsewhere, for instance, here, here and elsewhere on that mailing list.]
Jimbo on why he did it
There's a further problem, though: He never bothered to tell anyone that this was the reason for the deletions. In his first draft of the policy, he heavily implied that it had to do with legal requirements. The only implied reason for the change given in Jimbo's original policy draft was the line "Content which would trigger for the uploader or anyone else the reporting requirements of USC 2257 can be speedy deleted." - a law evidently requiring creators and merchandisers of pornographic film and photos in the U.S. to keep records of the models used.
People were not pleased. Some highlights
1.
2.
Jimbo on what he chose to delete
and
However, that didn't mean he actually wanted things to be discussed now:
But, hey, Wales is Wikipedia's Godking. He'll come out of this fine, right? Sure, there's a petition for his powers to be removed, but it'll never happen, right?
Jimbo Wales, May 9th
That's right, wankas, Jimbo Wales had to give up practically all his administrative powers over this.
Results
But, hey, the crisis was averted by Jimbo's actions, right? He said so several times:
And so on! So, surely Fox News was happy that Jimbo made sure that they got what they wanted?
...Nope. Didn't help at all. (I should point out that Fox's report bears little relation to reality - the number of images deleted has been enumerated, and was about 400, not the thousands they claim, and note they don't mention they're talking about 19th-century and early-20th-century artworks until around the third page - but, then, if you know FoxNews, would you be surprised?)
----
ETA 1: How badly did Jimbo mess up? Even after he voluntarily gave up his administrative rights, people were complaining he didn't give up enough, because he might be able to take them back in future. Laaknor and and Avi "helped" Jimbo by fixing this loophole and a bug fix has been stepped up in priority because one of the view-only rights he kept so he could do his job had some administrative rights attached. [Other posts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8]
ETA 2: Fox News mentions one image in their article as being particularly horrible. They give enough description that I was able to find it. It's this French cartoon from the early 20th century. Judge for yourselves whether it's worth the conniptions they have over it. And, yes, they're by an artist who's famous for his decadent illustrations of this type - but how dare Wikipedia include famous French artist!
Also, for those interested, here's one of the images Jimbo deleted personally, and wanted to delay discussion of restoring the file for a month.
ETA 3: Oh my god: It all makes sense: Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in a couple months! Consider:
...He wanted to get Commons completely purged while attention was on it, then - and then only - allow the restoration of encyclopedic material when attention was off it.
...I'm stunned.
In Soviet Russia you hunt Fox, in Fascist America Fox hunt YOU!--Wikipedia IRC channel comment.
Well, Wankas, it's time to wrap up this sorry mess. When last we left this probably-on-the-wrong-community-(oops!)-b
So, we begin with the big reveal: after edit warring to keep the images deleted, he finally stated why: Fox News was about to attack Wikipedia:
On the "Foundation-l" mailing list:
Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore
pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies.
I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do
encourage people to continue deleting the most extreme stuff.
But as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) there is not
nearly the time pressure that there was. I'm shifting into a slower mode.
We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.
Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible
policy discussion.
[That it was Fox specifically is clarified elsewhere, for instance, here, here and elsewhere on that mailing list.]
Jimbo on why he did it
There's a further problem, though: He never bothered to tell anyone that this was the reason for the deletions. In his first draft of the policy, he heavily implied that it had to do with legal requirements. The only implied reason for the change given in Jimbo's original policy draft was the line "Content which would trigger for the uploader or anyone else the reporting requirements of USC 2257 can be speedy deleted." - a law evidently requiring creators and merchandisers of pornographic film and photos in the U.S. to keep records of the models used.
People were not pleased. Some highlights
1.
So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just sit up like a good dog? We don't just say they're wrong, we join in to congratulate them.
...
Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
2.
Jimbo:
There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry.
I won't do it again.
John Vandenberg
You mistook people's toes for porn, three times, and you're sorry?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AF%C3%A9licien+Rops+-+Sainte-T h%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png
I'd rather have a factual story about the problem on Commons than a
muddled story that includes our "leader" being heavy handed in order
to censor the Commons.
Jimbo on what he chose to delete
...I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a
discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first
deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after
careful case by case discussions.
That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it.
and
I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get rid of.
However, that didn't mean he actually wanted things to be discussed now:
I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But, hey, Wales is Wikipedia's Godking. He'll come out of this fine, right? Sure, there's a petition for his powers to be removed, but it'll never happen, right?
Jimbo Wales, May 9th
In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real
philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I
acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do
things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit
semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.)
I do not want to be a tyrant or dictator. I do not want us to fight
about that kind of thing, as it's really a distraction from our work.
What I'm interested in is this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/8709616
Please watch it - it's 8 minutes long, and well worth it. This video
moved me deeply - it shows what our real impact on the world is, and I
think if you watch it, you'll feel the way that I did.
That's right, wankas, Jimbo Wales had to give up practically all his administrative powers over this.
Results
But, hey, the crisis was averted by Jimbo's actions, right? He said so several times:
"There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis..."
"...as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) [...] Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did..."
And so on! So, surely Fox News was happy that Jimbo made sure that they got what they wanted?
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
By Jana Winter - FOXNews.com
Despite efforts by Wikipedia's parent company to rapidly purge porn from its servers over the weekend, the original images that the online encyclopedia's co-founder reported to the FBI are still up on the site — along with an entire category called “nude children” and other photos of naked children.
[...]
On the heels of this reporting, Wikimedia began suddenly purging thousands of pornographic images from its sites.
But countless graphic images remain on the sites, including those of a 16-year-old boy's genitals, according to the file description, and an early 20th century color illustration of a young girl performing oral sex on an older man.
[...]
While the pictures are drawings and not photos, some legal experts [Expertise not guaranteed - Ed.] say they are obscene -- and illegal. But others contend that they technically do not reach the level of obscenity required to be ruled against the law.
...Nope. Didn't help at all. (I should point out that Fox's report bears little relation to reality - the number of images deleted has been enumerated, and was about 400, not the thousands they claim, and note they don't mention they're talking about 19th-century and early-20th-century artworks until around the third page - but, then, if you know FoxNews, would you be surprised?)
----
ETA 1: How badly did Jimbo mess up? Even after he voluntarily gave up his administrative rights, people were complaining he didn't give up enough, because he might be able to take them back in future. Laaknor and and Avi "helped" Jimbo by fixing this loophole and a bug fix has been stepped up in priority because one of the view-only rights he kept so he could do his job had some administrative rights attached. [Other posts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8]
ETA 2: Fox News mentions one image in their article as being particularly horrible. They give enough description that I was able to find it. It's this French cartoon from the early 20th century. Judge for yourselves whether it's worth the conniptions they have over it. And, yes, they're by an artist who's famous for his decadent illustrations of this type - but how dare Wikipedia include famous French artist!
Also, for those interested, here's one of the images Jimbo deleted personally, and wanted to delay discussion of restoring the file for a month.
ETA 3: Oh my god: It all makes sense: Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in a couple months! Consider:
"Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images."
*"This portion of policy against sexually explicit images applies to both actual photographs as well as drawings." (change made by him to Commons:Sexual content, his proposed policy, which other editors had agreed to forbid from applying to artworks - in other words, an expansion to broaden the legal definition to include anything that anyone might attack Commons over)
"We can have a long discussion and work out a new set of parameters after the cleanup project is completed. It is not acceptable to host pornography in the meantime."
"I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start."
"I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get rid of."
"There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry."
"We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen."
...He wanted to get Commons completely purged while attention was on it, then - and then only - allow the restoration of encyclopedic material when attention was off it.
...I'm stunned.
Post a comment in response:
