Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the wrong-venue-let's-say dept.

Wikipedia 263

Larry Sanger writes "Jimmy Wales recently took a bold position against pornography on Wikimedia Commons: '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.' Wales also restarted the "Commons:Sexual content" policy page. His basic complaint is that Wikimedia Commons hosts too much unnecessary porn, and he wants to get rid of it. He underscored his seriousness this way, stating that we can expect 'a strong statement' from the WMF soon: 'If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is OK for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue. That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days.'" (More, below.) Sanger continues: "This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions of child sexual molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can), and a little over a week after the FoxNews.com story. The latter coverage reported that one of my senators, and my representative to Congress, had forwarded the matter to the FBI's Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs. I'm happy to be able to congratulate Jimmy Wales for his good judgment on this, and I look forward to the larger Wikimedia community approaching these issues with a little more sanity."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Damn the Welsh! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124722)

At least it's not sheep.

Re:Damn the Welsh! (2, Insightful)

LinuxAndLube (1526389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124860)

Thank god there are still plenty of naked sheep on Wikipedia.

does Wales still have any authority? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124736)

I would've thought after the embezzling-expenses scandal, the Canadian-right-wing-talk-show-host scandal, the conflict of interest between his for-profit business at Wikia and the non-profit charity Wikipedia, and who knows how many others, that he would've been put out to pasture by now.

Re:does Wales still have any authority? (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124838)

I personally think he should be forced to read this [theonion.com] several times in a sitting.

And then yeah. He needs to be put out to pasture. And so do most of his patsies and corrupt hangers-on that make up the majority of Wikipedia's "administrator" clique while we're at it. Wikipedia has gotten to the point where so many article spaces are completely worthless because they're controlled not by sensible people wanting to write a real encyclopedia, but by organized game-players who rig the system.

Re:does Wales still have any authority? (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124946)

Oh, thanks, I'd forgotten about the Sex for Edits [gawker.com] storm in a B-cup.

Presumably all you have to do to get your content the Jimbo stamp of approval is to "fuck his brains out all night". Don't all queue up at once.

Re:does Wales still have any authority? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125344)

A cursory search of the web shows Rachel Marsden to be "unreliable". And that's a very nice way of putting it.

-l

Re:does Wales still have any authority? (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125422)

A cursory search of the web shows Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia to be "unreliable". And that's a very nice way of putting it.

There, fixed that for ya...

What a world we live in... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125044)

Only in America can people who entered the country illegally march in the streets and make demands of actual citizens! Dear Barack: you can speak out of both sides of your mouth on the issue if you wish, as long as you keep deporting these fuckers at a higher rate than Bush did.

Redundancy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124740)

Mention Slashdot in an article. Get your article published on Slashdot. Success.

Of course... (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124742)

If Wikipedia has porn, it competes with Wales' other web site, he wouldn't want that...

Re:Of course... (4, Funny)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125810)

Is there a comprehensive list of the disputed site? It's raining today and I can evaluate each page to see if it's truely pornographic. Thanx in advance. //gets lotion

3rd piss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124746)

would have had frosty piss but i actually had to go to wikipedia to try to find some of this pr0n.

Free Porn? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124748)

Is the currently hosted porn Creative Commons Licensed? Under what conditions has it been produced? Is it commercial trailers, or home made?
I support destroying the porn industry, by spreading the habit making porn at home and spreading it under a CC license.

Re:Free Porn? (4, Funny)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124792)

Hey, some of us like the professional stuff. Amateur porn has too many pimples and zits.

Re:Free Porn? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125066)

Still better than the millionth run-of-the-mill actress with the same boob, mouth and nose job (surgery, not sexual act), dully fucking their way through a never changing script of positions, all the while moaning the same fake sounds for 15 minutes straight, which makes you think they're just running a sound loop.

Re:Free Porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125378)

There's lots of variety out there. I for one welcome our new East European pr0n starlet overlords.

Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124852)

As on ac to another where is that porn on commons? please link!

"too much unnecessary porn" (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124752)

What does that even mean? So you host porn. And you admit some of it is unnecessary. And the ratio of unnecessary porn to necessary porn is too high? WTF?! Just stop hosting porn, or STFU.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (4, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124776)

What does that even mean? So you host porn. And you admit some of it is unnecessary. And the ratio of unnecessary porn to necessary porn is too high? WTF?! Just stop hosting porn, or STFU.

This does raise a good question: What is a necessary amount of porn?

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (5, Funny)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124818)

"Necessary" is a concept that varies according to each person. To me, my 47 porn DVDs are the necessary amount.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (4, Funny)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125154)

I was going to ask how you manage to resist and remain celibate for life, now I know.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (1)

PK Tech Guy (1310715) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125670)

Necessary perhaps, but is it sufficient?

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124840)

The necessary amount of porn is mainly related to how bogus the definition of porn is.

Of course this is a big fat social red herring with the biggest problem being the nailing down of exactly what porn is.

Porn is a scary sounding word that's easy to use to quickly defame someone.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (2, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124926)

Porn is a scary sounding word that's easy to use to quickly defame someone.

These sound like the words of a COMMUNIST or a TERRORIST or the dreaded LIBERTARIAN!.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125716)

Or to some AMERICAN

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (1, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125852)

These sound like the words of a COMMUNIST or a TERRORIST or the dreaded LIBERTARIAN!.

"Dreaded" libertarian? Right-wingers like the word so much they stole it from the socialist anarchists [blackened.net] .

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (4, Interesting)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125148)

Of course this is a big fat social red herring with the biggest problem being the nailing down of exactly what porn is.

I'm honestly too lazy to look up the textbook definition right now... But the fine summary has it pretty close to right.

images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests

The problem is, somebody has to evaluate what constitutes educational value and then quantify it somehow and then measure it against some kind of quantified prurient interest.

For someone who's looking for information on how to safely practice bondage or erotic asphyxiation, the pictures might be of high educational value. Might even save a life.

For someone who's just clicking through random articles on Wikipedia and stumbles across naked people it may look like straight-up smut with with no redeeming qualities.

Traditionally, it's been up to the community to decide what constitutes porn, generally on a fairly local level. If something winds up going to court it's usually up to your peers to decide whether there's educational content or not.

But with something like Wikipedia there's really no such thing as local. Or, rather, everything is local.

I'm sure there are folks somewhere in the world who consider the simple line drawings depicting how to give yourself a breast self-exam absolute filth. But most of us here in the US probably think that's of fairly high educational value.

So what do you do? Do you take down the self-exam diagram because you've offended someone on the planet?

Do you leave up something almost universally-prurient because somebody out there might find it educational?

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125004)

What is a necessary amount of porn?

The amount required to enable you to get off so that you can return to more productive pursuits? ;)

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125164)

It depends partly on what you think an encyclopedia should contain, partly on what you think is necessary, and partly on what you think constitutes porn. Should any of the articles under Category:Human sexuality [wikipedia.org] contain images? If so, what kinds of images? There are a lot of articles in that category and its subcategories, you'll note. Does, say, Clothed male, naked female [wikipedia.org] need some images? If so, are they porn?

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125576)

It depends partly on what you think an encyclopedia

Note that this seems to be about Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia (the title seems to be wrong on this, too).

Which makes it all the more strange. AIUI, Wikimedia Commons is meant to be a free repository for images. I'm not sure they currently have any restrictions as to the kind of image hosted, as long as it's legal? Sure they have the right to say what they want to host on their servers, but it seems the usefulness of this project is reduced if they start going down the slippery slope of saying some things aren't okay, especially when we start off with ill-defined categories.

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (5, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125260)

Would you like the answer expressed in Libraries of Congress, or Pallets of Kleenex?

Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125486)

Enough to satisfy rule 35, or the limits of digital storage technology at the time.
Whichever is larger.

I don't mind (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124756)

I know better places to find to porn.

Re:I don't mind (1)

LinuxAndLube (1526389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124874)

I don't believe you.

volunteer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124762)

I know whats the problem, lack of space, but I'll be glad to provide a terabyte or two of my 'cloud PC', as long as noone downloads it.. :)

Start with this then... (5, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124778)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo [wikipedia.org]

Censorship is a slippery slop.

Re:Start with this then... (5, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124958)

So what have you got against amputee porn in particular?

Re:Start with this then... (5, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124968)

Amputee porn... yuck! Must be removed!

Re:Start with this then... (-1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124972)

That's not pornography (though I object to this image, of course, for many reasons).

The fact that 3 idiot mods upvoted you does not even surprise me anymore.

Re:Start with this then... (2, Interesting)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125036)

That's not pornography (though I object to this image, of course, for many reasons).

The fact that 3 idiot mods upvoted you does not even surprise me anymore.

There are folks who view any and all nudity as pornography. Do you see the conflict now?

Should I have marked the link with NSFW? It all depends on who you ask.

Re:Start with this then... (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125052)

Should I have marked the link with NSFW? It all depends on who you ask.

For those of us who browse at work, yes: "Oh, a Wikipedia article? This can't be too bad..."

Re:Start with this then... (5, Insightful)

cyp43r (945301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125188)

You thought the VENUS DE MILO would be clothed?

Re:Start with this then... (2, Insightful)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125234)

lol, if you're shocked by the image of an ancient greek statue, then you might be better off never accessing the internet (or your library for that matter) ever again.

Now mark me flamebait, I don't mind.

Re:Start with this then... (2, Funny)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125826)

. . let's get those naked motherboards off the net! I am SICK of seeing pages filled with the sight of fully exposed motherboards, their slots wide open and connectors exposed. It is DISGUSTING! NewEgg is the worst, with close-up views of their back sides and I/O ports. However, NewEgg has more lawyers than ASUS M4A79XTD 'Extreme' has USB ports. I am ready to go in there and delete every motherboard fucking obscene picture!

Re:Start with this then... (3, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125266)

That's not pornography (though I object to this image, of course, for many reasons).

It may not be something that you would consider pornography... But that doesn't mean nobody out there does.

It's a topless woman. Sure, she's a statue... And missing arms... But she's still topless. There are plenty of websites out there displaying plenty of images awfully similar to this.

And there are plenty of people out there who's been offended by statues just like this. We've had politicians covering up topless statues before they give press conferences... And editing their state seals because it's got boobs on it...

The fact that 3 idiot mods upvoted you does not even surprise me anymore.

Why shouldn't it be upvoted? It's relevant to the discussion.

There are folks out there who've screamed about David's [wikipedia.org] penis over the years... They're of the firm opinion that it constitutes porn... And they'd love to get it taken out of every art-history book out there.

So, who gets to choose? Is it porn or not? Where do we draw the line?

If we start taking out anything and everything that could be considered pornographic by somebody on the planet we aren't going to have a whole lot left.

And this... (4, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125114)

This book [wikipedia.org] depicts incest and child sexual acts and it should be the first to go. It also promotes hate crimes against homo sexuals, slavery and violence towards women.

Re:Start with this then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125126)

No kidding! There's much [wikipedia.org] worse [wikipedia.org] . There must be dozens [wikipedia.org] of [wikipedia.org] images [wikipedia.org] ! And it just gets worse [wikipedia.org] the more you look. They even have pictures of dirty old men getting their jollies from looking at porn [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Start with this then... (2, Insightful)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125754)

Pornography is defined at least here in the states as being primarily for prurient interests and having no social or artistic value.

Heck, Wales uses the same criteria in the summary.

So Venus de Milo wouldn't count.

What else do you got?

I can't explain what pr0n is... (3, Insightful)

Airdorn (1094879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124780)

...but I know it when I see it.

Re:I can't explain what pr0n is... (5, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125018)

I think you mean "...but I know it when I come across it."

Re:I can't explain what pr0n is... (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125874)

I think you mean "...but I know it when I come across it..and then immediately forget about it."

didn't jimmy wales get his start in internet porn? (4, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124784)

and there it is, on wikipedia:

Inspired by the remarkable initial public offering of Netscape in 1995, he decided to become an internet entrepreneur,[11] and in 1996 founded the web portal Bomis with two partners.[9][16] The website featured user-generated webrings and for a time sold erotic photographs.[17] Wales described it as a "guy-oriented search engine" with a market similar to that of Maxim magazine;[1][7][18] and according to The Atlantic Monthly it "found itself positioned as the Playboy of the Internet".[16] Bomis did not become successful, but in March 2000 hosted and provided the initial funding for the Nupedia project.[7][9][19]

Re:didn't jimmy wales get his start in internet po (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124894)

This is hardly news.

Next you'll be telling us that Obama had an African father, and that Simon Cowell can be mean sometimes.

Re:didn't jimmy wales get his start in internet po (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125546)

Next you'll be telling us that Obama had an African father

Are you sure? I'm fairly sure I remember Fox News telling me that his father was Satan and his mother was Stalin's daughter.

Let him go. (4, Insightful)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124788)

Somebody wants information about human sexuality removed from an encyclopedia or he's going to walk? I say, let him and his puritanical beliefs walk.

I have been using wikipedia for since it's inception and never once do I recall being subjected to "pornography". However, if I needed to do a research paper for school on the subject, I would appreciate the maintained links that wikipedia provides. Censorship. Give me a break. Then you need a whole team of censors to debate over what is acceptable or not, which is unnecessary and ridiculous. IT'S AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. All information is acceptable. Because, it's informative.

Re:Let him go. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124822)

yikes, wikipedia isn't what you should be citing for school, dont you knwo its information is unreliable and filled with porn?

Re:Let him go. (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124850)

Heh, my friend and I were laughing last week when her textbook cited wikipedia...

Re:Let him go. (4, Informative)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124948)

Heh, my friend and I were laughing last week when her textbook cited wikipedia...

Wikipedia can be used as a starting point for learning a subject though. If you don't want to dive into a thick textbook or several case studies on a topic, you can read Wikipedia and get a rundown on what the topic is. If you feel the need (or are doing a project), then you can investigate further and read the textbook or case study and use those as citations.

This is all what the librarians in High School would tell my class. Nothing wrong with using it as a starting point, but it can't be the only source of information.

Re:Let him go. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125656)

Heck, outside of academic cites it's a wonderful place to learn in general. Blatantly false edits usually get fixed pretty darned fast. On almost every page where I've found false edits - particularly vandalism, by the time I refreshed the page to fix it myself, someone else had beaten me to it.

As such it's great for just sitting around and reading for the sake of personal learning about stuff. I'm long past the time when I am writing anything where I need to cite a source anyways. It's moreso cases of little points of curiosity where I wonder "You know, just how DID New Coke come about?" or "Why did Husqvarna stop making rifles and start making lawnmowers?". For brushing up on stuff like that, Wikipedia is amazing.

Re:Let him go. (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125564)

"knwo its"

haha, funny, you got me

Re:Let him go. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125098)

However, if I needed to do a research paper for school on the subject,

You do research on pornography at school nowadays?

Young people these days.

Re:Let him go. (1, Insightful)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125198)

Somebody wants information about human sexuality removed from an encyclopedia or he's going to walk? I say, let him and his puritanical beliefs walk.

Actually that's not what this is about at all. Feel free to read the article next time, so you can speak intelligently with the rest of the adults.

Re:Let him go. (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125834)

Read which article? The summary has 6 links. Which one is "the article"? I'm supposed to spend an hour of research before I can post? No, I didn't RTFA. But, I did re-read the fucking summary. And I see that he wants to remove porn that has little to no educational value.

Great. But, why focus on porn? Wouldn't everyone involved in contributing to wikipedia want to remove all content that is of no educational value? Whether that be excessive pictures of Doric Greek pillars or Chinese anal beads.

My point is, wikipedia admins should be removing all unnecessary content, not focusing on unnecessary "sexual" content.

Porn with no educational value is already verboten (4, Informative)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125860)

It's not an encyclopedia. Wales is discussing Wikimedia Commons, a related but seperate project from Wikipedia. They've already got a whole team of people who debate over what is acceptable or not at Commons:Deletion requests [wikimedia.org] . This isn't about what should or should not be included - porn with no informative purpose is already subject to deletion [wikimedia.org] . What Wales is calling for is a greater effort to reduce them.

As a Slashdotter to Mr. Sanger (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124802)

This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can)

Well, I read a lot of those comments and while they were for the most part overly negative toward you, I think they had some good advice.

A number [slashdot.org] of them [slashdot.org] let you know that if you want to champion this message that Wikipedia hosts child porn then you should probably drop the "and also I run a clean competing product called Citizendia." I'm not accusing you of this but on the surface it may seem that you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion in some sort of free-cyclopedia-war. I think the Slashdot comments sent you a very valuable message to keep both of these messages separate to avoid that possibility.

Another thing that comments focused on was your Libertarianism conflicting with your moralism. The comments explored possibilities in which "child porn" becomes used inadvertently without an actual production or desire [slashdot.org] for it to be used as such. What about when someone draws or makes computer simulations [slashdot.org] of said things? If it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, shouldn't a Libertarian allow that? It seems your morals and ethics do come into conflict with a pure Libertarian stance. Slashdot has a large Libertarian readership so you should be prepared for this.

I was in a museum in New York City and saw an exhibit of with pictures of mentally challenged children playing outside in the grass, mostly undressed. Everyone else there was treating it as "art." I'd like to Google and find the artist for you but I'm not interested in that being saved in my Google searches. Which reveals to you that I'm not a big fan of what you speak of either (if it's any consolation) but I think the images on Wikimedia are community regulated and you're going to find an argument somewhere no matter what stance you take. For instance, I will defend [WARNING! Nudity] this image [wikipedia.org] as an image of war, a reminder of Vietnam, a historical photograph and I am prepared to argue with you that that image has some merit and should remain on Wikipedia. But if I understand your stance that image needs to be removed?

You shouldn't take these comments as "ripped to shreds." Slashdot likes to avoid the obvious discussion and no one's interested in "I agree." comments as they don't add much to the conversation. When your ideas are on Slashdot, you're being flayed open for anyone to take any amount of time to poke at your soft underbelly and do what they want with it. Expect the full spectrum of responses and it seems that no matter how much I disagree with a stance, if you can form it into cogent and at least semi-logical defenses then you should be modded up.

You're a valuable member of the Slashdot community. I don't think you should take the highly rated, negative comments to heart and I hope you continue to contribute to Slashdot like NewYorkCountryLawyer.

Re:As a Slashdotter to Mr. Sanger (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124964)

You shouldn't take these comments as "ripped to shreds."

He must browse at -1.

Re:As a Slashdotter to Mr. Sanger (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124998)

"It seems your morals and ethics do come into conflict with a pure Libertarian stance. "

Oh, really?

So... (2, Insightful)

papabob (1211684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124842)

the "universal" enciclopedy, where "all the knowledge" is contributed by "anyone" is about to filter certain content based in the moral views of a purist american? Well... doubleplusgood, I assume...

Funny thing is... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124918)

the "universal" enciclopedy, where "all the knowledge" is contributed by "anyone" is about to filter certain content based in the moral views of a purist american? Well... doubleplusgood, I assume...

It REALLY was always that way.

Re:So... (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124952)

How is this flameblade? I think it's a very valid point.
Although whale-porn isn't my cup of tea either.
"It's wales, jimmy, but not a we know them".

Re:So... (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125468)

That was also my thought.

The falsely prude american point of view is so hypocritical, too. I could write a long tirade on it, but I find it too disgusting.

WP:CENSOR? (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124854)

As long as it focuses on applying actual existing Wikipedia policy - removing stuff that's just plain porn, but leaving material that's sexually explicit but informative or educational - this sounds like a good thing. There's plenty of other places on the web for gratuitous beaver shots. But if it turns into an attempt to censor Wikipedia into a PG13 (or even R) "family-friendly" encyclopedia, or serves as the justification for a witch-hunt against "adult" subjects in general in the guise of a "protect the children" campaign, that'll be bad for Wikipedia and a really bad precedent.

Re:WP:CENSOR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125446)

"There's plenty of other places on the web for gratuitous beaver shots."

I [wikipedia.org] don't [wikipedia.org] get [wikipedia.org] it [wikipedia.org] .

Oh, wait [wikipedia.org] .

I love you Wikipedia!

Oh noes porn! (3, Interesting)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124876)

I'm tempted to upload photos of S&M to the relevant articles now, since he seems to think they're always okay to speedy-delete, even when they're not sexual. From the link:

"Content which would trigger for the uploader or anyone else the record keeping requirements of USC 2257 can be speedy deleted. This refers to photographs and film - all other artistic media is excluded from this requirement, unless derivative of one of those - of actual or simulated acts of... 4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse."

I might not be a leather fan, but that doesn't make it okay to remove this kind of stuff.

(And before you say that this only applies to WMF, not WP, keep in mind that they are the same entity! It won't be long before this policy trickles over into the various language WPs.)

Re:Oh noes porn! (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32124896)

I hate replying to myself, but:

"Whether or not the Foundation has to adhere to [USC] 2257 is not known, this content limitation is due to the scope of the foundation's goals."

Arg! You fucking bastard! You haven't even talked to your lawyers, this is just your way of purifying content so that you don't get complaints from big donors. It's not like you couldn't comply with 2257 either, what with that office in FL that's always open since it's a FUCKING DATACENTER.

Re:Oh noes porn! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125056)

What would blow his fucking mind is if someone went through and replaced ALL the live action porn with the anime equivalents, since they wouldn't trigger USC 2257, and isn't "photographs and film".

Bonus points if you track down various thousand-year-old woodblock prints like the one with the woman fucking an octopus and use those instead, public domain ;)

What a douche bag... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124928)

Does anyone have an idea what "porn" this guy is talking about? I checked out the wikipedia article on lolicon he mentions and found only a cartoon image of clothed young girls. This is just an attempt to draw attention to his lame encyclopedia [deleting link; its a website by a some douche bag].

Re:What a douche bag... (4, Informative)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125326)

He's not talking about Wikipedia. He's talking about Wikimedia Commons, which already needs a specific warning template asking people to please refrain from adding Yet More Pictures Of Users' Cocks Because We Have Enough Already Thank You.

Descriptive or prescriptive? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32124976)

I suppose that Wales never took an art history course. Many of the world's most famous works of art could have been described as "images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests" in their time.

It seems that Wales doesn't want a Wikipedia that accurately describes our contemporary world. Instead, he wants a Wikipedia that prescribes what he thinks the world SHOULD be like.

Who's Sue? (2, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125000)

[...]you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue

So, who is this Sue?

Re:Who's Sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125212)

If the board doesn't make a statement you should sue, or sue them anyway.

Re:Who's Sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125438)

A member of the Wikipedia Oligarchy, Sue Gardner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Gardner

(Forgive my pasting; I can't program, I'm here for the lols.)

Surprised!! (2, Interesting)

methano (519830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125012)

I'm surprised to hear that there is a lot of pornography on the Wikipedia Commons. I look at the "Wikipedia Commons:Quality images candidates" page daily. It's where I get my various desktop background images. I've never seen any pr0n. OK, once there was a picture of a woman real close up. I mean real close up. But that's it. Am I looking in the wrong place?

Re:Surprised!! (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125038)

Mod parent up. I was about to say the same thing -- I've never seen any porn on Wiki[p|m]edia. I tried doing a search for "porn" on Wikipedia, but my corporate firewall blocked it.

Re:Surprised!! (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125070)

I tried doing a search for "porn" on Wikipedia, but my corporate firewall blocked it.

Soon LordNimon is called down to his manager's office for a meeting with HR...

Re:Surprised!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125306)

Indeed! Where is this porn? Give me links, lots of links... keep 'em coming...

Re:Surprised!! (1)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125788)

Well, of course, it all depends on what you consider 'porn', doesn't it? For example, on the People page for Quality images, it has this picture [wikimedia.org] (NSFW?). Is that porn? I don't think so. However, it shows (gasp!) breasts. Therefore, some people will consider it porn and/or offensive. They might even call it child porn, since I have no idea of the woman's age. They are morons IMHO, but still, what can you do?

umod up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125046)

watershed essay, standpoint, I don't share. *BSD is HAS STEADILY to avoid so as to BSD has always they're g0ne Mac DO AND DOING WHAT Wasn't on Steve's

Jimmy Wales is a cunt. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125048)

Jimmy Wales is a cunt.

Porn according to whom? (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125294)

For example Reproductive System [wikipedia.org] contain images and pictures that will be "inspiring" for most males of a certain age (in fact, a hole in a wall is "inspiring" at that age).

Is this porn?

Re:Porn according to whom? (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125354)

FTFA: ".. all images that are of little or no educational value .."

These images you mention seem to have educational value.

Yeah, there might be different opinions about how much is sufficient to be educational, but the comment is not "If this is porn/'inspiring', then it should be removed" but "little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests".

Re:Porn according to whom? (4, Informative)

Penguin (4919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125396)

.. and to elaborate on this subject; I could upload every random picture I shoot with my camera or any picture my webcam takes every five seconds.

In that case it makes perfect sense to remove a lot of these pictures even though some randomly might happen to contain something interesting one day.

Good thing I didn't make my annual donation yet (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32125406)

Shut up, Wales. If you want to have a walled garden instead of a publicly editable resource, then why don't you work for Steve Jobs instead of Wikipedia? This is not just about what you call "pornography", but about everything the deletionist front has censored so far.

I've probably donated roughly $100 over the years since 2004, but I can't continue giving money to a place with a clear conservative and corporate philosophy. If you act like a for-profit, maybe instead of soliciting donations you should jump the shark and actually commercialize the project.

0.0001%? (4, Informative)

jurgen (14843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125556)

So Wikimedia Commons is being overwhelmed by porn, the way Usenet was 10-15 years ago, right? Well, I'd love to see some of it, but I can't seem to find it. A search for "porn" turns up i.e. pictures of pornographic actresses, almost all clothed (an occasional one topless). "Pussy" turns up some pictures of pussycats, "teats" turns up nothing because people can't spell, "tits" and "penis" finds some stuff that's highly anatomical, "fucking" gives as its top result a fucking couple... of flies! In short, if there's any porn in Wikimedia, it's less than 1 in a million.

It seems to be all just Jimmy Wales trying to get some publicity and one-upping Larry Sanger. The whole thing is even more pathetic than Larry Sanger's original fantasy-rant.

Alright people, nothing to see here...

Time to brush up on your browsing skills then (1)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125850)

While this user's wiki-commons userpage;

http://www.webcitation.org/5pWirbCuy [webcitation.org]

was deleted only a few days ago, much if not all of the linked images still reside in the Commons.

Oxymoron? (3, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125632)

... unnecessary porn ...

First the Irish, now the Welsh (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125856)

;)

Jimbo is only motivated to act (1)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32125862)

via outside pressure. This is an effort to save face, not to actually clean anything up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?