:I think they're still trying to deal with the fact that communities (German Wikipedia) and a number of users in other communities, including here, are opposed to the image filter as proposed. Not to mention that that poll thing they did was biased and the results are, thus, completely useless. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
:I think they're still trying to deal with the fact that communities (German Wikipedia) and a number of users in other communities, including here, are opposed to the image filter as proposed. Not to mention that that poll thing they did was biased and the results are, thus, completely useless. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
::The image filter is on the agenda for this week's board meeting so rather than speak about it now, it'd be best if I speak about it after I've gotten the latest updates in San Francisco.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
== After SOPA, [[Muhammed]] article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures? ==
== After SOPA, [[Muhammed]] article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures? ==
Revision as of 19:33, 29 January 2012
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.
There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on commons and meta. Please choose the most relevant.
I don't see a problem with that specific statement. I think you have misinterpreted it; "compromising Wikipedia" means "compromising Wikipedia's security", not "compromosing Wikipedia's principles".
But I hope Jimbo is reading the whole thing because it left a bad taste in my mouth. As I said above, if I hadn't found out about it here I'd have asked him about it here. It's Kafkaesque. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misinterpreting the statement, Ken. That still leaves the problem of how the process of weeding out apparent - since I haven't seen the "evidence", I cannot estimate its value - endangers Wikipedia's security. Our processes need to be be transparent in order to have any value whatsoever. After the Scibaby, Orangemarlin and other debacles, we need some sort of public oversight, like a random experienced user or two to offer some sanity in what is increasingly appearing to be an insulated environment. ARBCOM is making closed door decisions which affect the lives of others without offering a shred of proof. That's entirely unsatisfactory. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into the ScottyBerg situation briefly (after it was mentioned here yesterday). I read through the ArbCom archives on the topic. As there is no appeal before me, there is not really much for me to actually do. At this stage, all I can say is that if I count in any way as a credible source and "random experienced user", the conclusion that the ArbCom came to here was not capricious, and it was based on perfectly routine evidence. There is a lot of rhetoric being thrown around about "secret trial" that I think isn't really apt - there are issues here of courtesy to the user that mean a bit of discretion is the compassionate course. If he wants to fully waive all rights to privacy, I can say more, but i doubt if he will want to make that choice. (If you are imagining exciting revelations, though, you'll be sorely disappointed.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting exciting revelations, I'm imagining "if this happened to me, what could I do?" To which the answer of course is "nothing". If Arbcom chose to kick you off of Wikipedia (and you didn't use your influence as Jimbo, of course) you couldn't prove your innocence, see or rebut evidence, appeal, or even return in six months, because the procedure makes it impossible for the accused user to do so.
I also don't see why the user should have to waive his rights to privacy for the evidence to be presented to himself, giving him a chance to examine and rebut it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo: Of course, this was a secret trial with secret evidence. The accused didn't even know they were on trial for Pete's sake. Even the appeal was conducted secretly. Nobody knows what's going on. Please, this isn't rhetoric; it's the plain and simple truth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the fact that the user appealed his block to the ArbCom? Of course he knew about it. He's well aware of the evidence (checkuser data and a consistent pattern of behavior that exceeds our normal threshold for a sockpuppet investigation), and well aware of how to rebut it. If he appeals to me, then I'll assist him as best I can with that process, including sharing with him any information that I rely upon to make my decision.
Look, it is really really really super easy for him to prove his innocence. I'll make the same offer to him that I made to him years ago: if you aren't who the evidence strongly suggests you are, then all you have to do is hop on skype with me and have a chat about it. There are pictures of the person in question on the web, and I can just see for myself. When I made this offer years ago, he got very belligerent with me. I made the offer at that time in a fun way because I thought he was being unjustly persecuted and his protestations of innocence to me rang very true. I thought it'd be a great thing for him to disprove the allegations. (Even offered to meet him for coffee in New York, as I recall...) His unpleasant reaction to the suggestion in the past, and the preponderance of the evidence in the current case, suggests that he won't want to do that because it's actually true, he's a sockpuppet of that banned user.
I think the more interesting question in this case is not about whether ArbCom has done the right thing or not. (That's always interesting of course, but I am talking about what is MORE interesting.) The more interesting question is whether or not we can construct a good protocol by which someone in this situation can "come in from the cold". He's made a lot of perfectly decent edits, some that were questionable, but on the whole in this incarnation (as far as I am aware) he's a mostly ok editor. I would personally be supportive of the community having a discussion to approve him to edit as long as he stops with the sockpuppeting and just edits under his real name.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this nuanced opinion. But in one case you fall into the same trap. You assume that he has been rightly identified as a sock master, and suggest you would support letting him back in to edit "under his real name". There are two problems with that. First, we don't require real names as a rule. You and I are identifiable by choice, but many others, including Arbs, are not identifiable to normal editors. But the second problem is more problematic. What I and Ken and (I think) several others are concerned with is the small, but non-negligible chance that the editor is not, in fact, the sock-puppet he is taken for. In that case, the editor is in a classical Catch-22. What I want to see is some way to get editors out of this situation. Your proposal, up to (but excluding) "and just edits under his real name" would do that. With that sentence, we're back to square one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Letting him prove his innocence by hopping on Skype would answer my complaint and I agree that refusing to do so looks suspicious. From reading the talk page, however, he was never given a chance to do such a thing. (Someone suggested faxing in a copy of his driver's license, but I don't think that was an arbitrator.) The answer to the question "what can I do to prove my innocence" was "nothing" (or no answer at all), not "well, you could go on Skype or send a copy of your driver's license". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that (at least from what he said) he didn't know what to do to exonerate himself, even if he didn't explicitly ask it as a question, and Arbcom was utterly uninterested in telling him. If they had said "sure, go on Skype so we can see you're not Mantanmoreland", that would be different. (Assuming, of course, that Arbcom then accepted the results of the Skype session. It's always possible to say "well, maybe he got a friend to go on Skype for him".) And someone did suggest the driver's license, and Arbcom was silent on that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see in his comments a general ignorance of how to exonerate himself, but rather a narrower complaint that Arbcom would not "engage" him in dialogue by giving him details of the evidence against him. Someone who has been on the "prosecution" side of multiple SPIs ([1]) could reasonably be expected to know the general nature of checkuser and behavioral evidence used in such investigations, to understand what information could not be disclosed, and to take up sensible ideas (like videoconferencing or providing official identification) for how to verify their real-life identity to an arbitrator. But ScottyBerg rejected even the idea of emailing a copy of his driver's license to a sympathetic third party ([2]) and did not reply (at least not on-wiki) to AGK's specific request for him to email exonerating evidence to the committee, just a few comments and a few hours after Hans Adler's suggestion about faxing a driver's license to the Foundation. I think it's erroneous to say that Arbcom was silent or that ScottyBerg was wholly defenseless. He simply seems not to have used the avenues open to him, though I hasten to acknowledge that he may have privately taken AGK up on his offer. alanyst00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left some updated clarifications at ScottyBerg's usertalk...no need to repeat them here. Also, Jimbo...whatever harm Mantanmoreland did, it hardly compares to the Wordbomb character. ScottyBerg made a few edits to a certain bio, triggering this Wikipedia Review based witch hunt. Since ScottyBerg has 12,000 edits and demonstrated no malicious intent in his editing history (generally avoiding Mantanmoreland's old haunts), I think had ScottyBerg simply vowwed to continue to avoid Mantanmorelands areas, the ban could have been lifted under arbcom supervision or similar.MONGO21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The off-wiki activity on this case has been a matter of concern. I sent some evidence to ArbCom on the issue, though it is not clear to me if the arbs are discussing the matter much, if at all. Perhaps you could look at the evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo do you think its correct that the Allison after consulting the arbs blocked scotty then the Arbs hear the appeal turn it down and basically say unless he admits guilt then then no further appeal to them will work thats basically judge jury and executioner. Its clear thats in cases like this the Arbs cannot impartially hear a further appeal when they were part of the original block and first appeal. In cases like this its clear there needs to be a further route of appeal i.e. to the WMF. Also can you clarify How long arbs are allowed to keep check user data for and how securely they store it and what is done to protect that data.EdinburghWanderer21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in human rights or systems of governance. No one has been imprisoned or fined. Very reasonable explanations have been given, and very reasonable offers have been made—we cannot expect perfection with complete satisfaction for all concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly reasonable offers for someone who insists there not guilty and the arbs just try and protect themselves in these cases another impartial body needs to look at. Especially when the arbs have been involved form the first block which means subsequent appeals are hardly impartial.EdinburghWanderer02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we edit the Five Pillars to remove the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", or at least to add a disclaimer "This statement may not be invoked for or against any policy". It is almost always misused in discussions about how to run an encyclopedia.
It's as if the US Constitution had a clause "this is a country" and whenever anyone argued against the President's policies they were told "you're arguing for something that a country doesn't do". All that is is "I don't like it", stated in a fancier way.
(While we're at it we can go into IAR and remove the clause "to improve the encyclopedia". I can't count the number of times measures to strengthen BLP were opposed on the grounds that helping to prevent harm to a BLP subject doesn't improve the encyclopedia). Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the apparent lack of response after bringing this to the attention of ArbCom nearly two weeks ago I will leave the evidence of off-wiki coordination here. User:Cookiehead, who appears to frequent the site of Wikipedia Review where many active and banned editors have been discussing User:ScottyBerg as a sock of Mantan, makes the following edit to the Gary Weiss article: [3]. What is rather telling is that the edit summary has a comical feel to it and the use of quotations around the phrase "weight-loss surgery" as well suggests this was never meant as a serious edit. Sure enough, as soon as Scotty reverts the edit Cookie goes to WR to announce his success: [4]. It appears this was the inciting incident that led to the block, all apparently prompted by the discussion on WR.
However, the most unsettling thing is what happens next. Following several acts of vandalism the article was put under protection. At that point User:Cla68 leaves a post on the WR thread suggesting ways to "smoke out" Mantan socks in the future: [5]. Providing advice about how to use edits to a BLP as a way to provoke someone into an action that will lead to a block is a clear-cut case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Should an editor be making positive contributions to the site and only fail to do so as a consequence of baiting by a group of individuals editing in bad faith, I believe the latter should be the subject of greater concern than the former.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The animated gif file of a man mastrubating is in a public domain. Do we need it in public domain?
I had to write to you because of the conversation on wikimedia-commons irc this Tuesday. You can read it. The people involved consented for the conversation to be made public. I am natbrown. Natkabrown (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[10:31]natbrown has joined #wikimedia-commons
[10:33] <natbrown> Hi, I found some very unpleasant photos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_techniques_-_Circumcision_experience_%28Beschneidungs-Erfahrung%29.jpg
[10:33] <natbrown> There is a video attached as well
[10:33] <Funfood> What is your problem with these files?
[10:34] <natbrown> There is a whole category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation
[10:34] <Funfood> there it belongs to, yes
[10:34] <natbrown> I am a woman. I find this very offencive. I don't want to see it.
[10:35] <Funfood> you don't need to open them, neither the files or the category
[10:35] <natbrown> Should this be in Wikipedia? Aren't there enough sites dedicated to these techniques?
[10:35] <Nickname1> you'll get over it
[10:36] <Funfood> commons is not wikipedia, but there are, of course a lot of discussions about those files
[10:36] <natbrown> I found them by searching for "roll over
[10:36] <Funfood> I for my part don't think that human body parts are disgusting somehow
[10:37] <Funfood> but your opinion may vary
[10:37] <natbrown> Very often I work with my granddaughter by my site. She is 8 now. Would you like your daughter or your mother to see those files?
[10:38] <Funfood> If they appear by accident on the screen, it is a good time to explain children something about the internet
[10:38] <Funfood> and my mother has surely seen a penis before ;)
[10:39] <natbrown> It is pornography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
[10:39] <natbrown> There should be no pornography on Wikimedia. It isn't educational.
[10:40] <Funfood> pornography
[10:40] <AsimovBot> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/pornography
[10:40] <Funfood> the first lines are the important ones ;)
[10:41] <natbrown> There is a page there about child pornography as well. Thank God no pictures!
[10:41] <Funfood> they would be deleted at once and the uploaders will have a hard time afterwards
[10:41] <natbrown> The children are exploited all around the world.
[10:45] <Funfood> nudity
[10:45] <AsimovBot> [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/nudity
[10:47] <natbrown> I was shocked to discover those files. I thought that Wikimedia had no videos of mustrubation. What can I do?
[10:48] <natbrown> They are very offencive to any woman. I feel like someone has been mustubating in front of me.
[10:49] <Funfood> you can do what everybody can do: start a deletion request fpr the file. But you can be shure it will be rejected.
[10:50] <natbrown> I can't believe that you all have no those feelings. Are you all frigthen that if you lose those files peple wouldn't know where to find them?
[10:50] <Funfood> Sexual content does not mean it is bad
[10:51] == Snowolf_ [snowolf@wikimedia/Snowolf] has joined #wikimedia-commons
[10:53] <natbrown> I will start a page on a facebook "Stop pornography on Wikipedia". The fact that it's only on wikimedia has no relevance. All files from wikimedia can be added with one click to Wikipedia. Lots of people donated to Wikipedia. Did they all know that there are such files there?
[10:54] <Nickname1> okay have fun
[10:54] <Funfood> by creating this facebook page you can be sure that more people will come to commons just to see these files :)
[10:55] <natbrown> Do you really think that this is what the world need?
[10:57] <Funfood> I think that the world needs less censorship and more open minded people
[11:01] <Snowolf> natbrown: Wikipedia is not censored. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer for the English Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, as an example. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CENSORSHIP#Censorship for some idea of what is and isn't within the scope of Wikimedia Commons
[11:01] <natbrown> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7SIDz3M5Y They say that Wikipedia is doing what they can to delete phorn. The video that is attached is porn.
[11:04] <natbrown> If I meet some man that I don't know they don't do those things in front of me. Why they should do it online? Why you should provide a space for it? Is it where the donations are going?
[11:07] <Funfood> so why just don't delete the whole internet? There's porn in it (I heard)
[11:07] <Snowolf> Oh the Young Turks; that is from over a year ago, and child pornography is taken seriously. But otherwise the projects are not censored.
[11:08] <Funfood> the file you linked has definitively educational content, even if it is sexual content
[11:10] <natbrown> Funfood: are you admin? For how many years are you on mediawiki?
[11:10] <Snowolf> Different things may be offensive to different people, in different countries. There is no worldwide sensitivity on things, and even if there was, who would have ot make the call. It just doesn't work that way, Wikimedia strives not to be censored as much as possible.
[11:10] <Funfood> no, I am no admin and I am here for just some months
[11:11] <natbrown> Are there any admins here?
[11:11] <Funfood> but I don't know how this should influence my opinion
[11:11] <Snowolf> There are some people to which the existence of images depicting Prophet Muhammad is offensive, as you're probably aware; to others, sexually explicit images are a problem.
[11:13] <Snowolf> In the end, you end up making everybody unhappy. Now I am sorry that an image like that bothered you, each one of us has a different sensitivity, and there may be/is content on Wikimedia projects I might find objectionable too
[11:14] <Snowolf> But we don't censor things. Could things be improved? Always. Is it easy? No, striving a balance between removing images of no education value (because Wikimedia Commons is not a free host for images akin to imageshack and the like) and censorship of useful images is not easy, but it is important to err on the side of caution.
[11:15] <Funfood> well said
[11:15] <Snowolf> Some user more involved than me in the Commons project could give you a better answer in any case, just trying to offer my perspective and understanding of it.
[11:17] <natbrown> If you have been on this irc for some time, they you should know the feelings of other users of this channel. Does everyone think so?
[11:18] <Snowolf> natbrown: I have been on irc for some years yes, but other users could tell you better than me the consensus onwiki, which is where it really matters. IRC is but a small spectrum of the opinions onwiki discussion can offer. I don't think it is ever the case that everybody thinks one way, once enough persons are involved
[11:19] <Snowolf> This case is no different
[11:19] <natbrown> Where do I find them?
[11:19] <Snowolf> nadar: I will try and look for the discussion that happened
[11:20] <natbrown> Thanks.
[11:20] <Snowolf> natbrown: I believe the most recent proposal on this matter was the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum
[11:21] <Snowolf> the results of it are on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en
[11:21] <Snowolf> This was a Wikimedia-wide proposal
[11:21] <Snowolf> But this was just a filter to hide such content from view
[11:21] <Funfood> oh the link I gave was wrong, i meant this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
[11:23] <Snowolf> natbrown: that page Funfood just linked details how Wikimedia Commons deals with nudity and sexually explicit images and offers links to both policies and two proposed guidelines that failed, where you can find the discussion
[11:31] <natbrown> I know of the schools that allow children to go to Wikipedia, I don't think that they know of those files. They are very damaging to the kids. They don't need to see it.
[11:33] <Funfood> in which way damaging?
[11:37] <Nickname1> because the human body is sinful and if they see pictures of it they'll go to hell
[11:38] <Funfood> Ah, heard of this concept
[11:46] <natbrown> Is there anyone there who thinks the same as me?
[11:47] <natbrown> Am I the only one who is horrified?
[12:00] <natbrown> OK, it looks there is no one to answer :( I have opened the page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745?sk=wall there is a photo of my granddaughter there. I am doing it for her.
[12:01] <natbrown> I will copy and paste this conversation, so people know why I have opened the group.
[12:02] <natbrown> !admin@commons
[12:03] <Snowolf> You cannot copypaste this conversation without the permission of all involved
[12:03] <Snowolf> Otherwise you would be in violation of copyright.
[12:03] <Snowolf> Personally, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced.
[12:04] <natbrown> I don't care, I feel like my soul is being torn apart. Do you know the feeling?
[12:05] <natbrown> I do it and those who want can object it. I will answer them for what I have done.
[12:07] <natbrown> I will delete ip addresses to keep people privacy.
[12:08] <Snowolf> You are free to reproduce all that I've said, however you really shouldn't reproduce what other have said without their permission. It is automatically copyrighted in a good chunk of countries, including the United States
[12:10] <Snowolf> In any case, you are now aware of the issue. Please try to keep in mind that each of us has a point of view, and sometimes we should take a step back and try to see everybody else's
[12:10] <nickname2> it's not really a copyright issue
[12:10] <Snowolf> Sensibilities are really different in different parts of the world
[12:10] <nickname2> but rather a privacy issue
[12:10] <nickname2> even if the channel is public, the channels logs are not ought to be public
[12:11] <Snowolf> nickname2: that's another matter, which stems from freenode and channel rules
[12:11] <Snowolf> In any case, I feel I've tried to explain what I could :)
[12:14] <natbrown> Can you refer me to the policy that I can't make this conversation public?
[12:17] <natbrown> Funfood: Are you against of what being said to be reproduces publicly?
[12:18] <natbrown> Snowolf: Do you want me to change your nickname?
[12:19] <Snowolf> natbrown: as I stated before, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced at all.
[12:19] <natbrown> Shall I leave you name as Snowolf:
[12:20] <Snowolf> Sure :)
[12:20] <Snowolf> http://blog.freenode.net/2007/12/blogging-about-logging/ this is some detail on the issues of releasing logs, but in any case I would just ask Funfood about it
[12:21] <natbrown> I can change it. I only want to explain the issue to other people. I don't need to have name. Fundood is not answering.
[12:26] <natbrown> Snowolf: Thank you for allowing to publish the conversation.
[12:27] <Funfood> I have no problems if you let my opinions there
[12:31] <natbrown> Funfood: Thanks. I have to open the page on Facebook since I can't find anyone who supports my opinion here. I think that the matter is very important for general public.
Did your child see some naughty image you wish they hadn't? Just add Wikipedia to the list of blocked sites on your net filter and have a talk with your child.
Additionally Natbrown, funny that you were looking for Russian words for "motion". Tatu have a song called "Простые движения", which translates as "Simple Motions". There's even a music video for it. Take a look; it's got simulated masturbation, although by looking how good she seems to be feeling, perhaps it is real, but it certainly doesn't seem to be hurting her. Not at all. Y u no be Russaviaლ(ಠ益ಠლ)19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sir or Ma'am, information on sexual topics in included in Wikipedia in an educational manner, as they indeed educational (and often academic) topics. In order to discuss these topics, often an illustration is needed for clarification. The illustrations chosen are those deemed to be educationally descriptive. So, yes, there are images of nudity and sexuality on Wikipedia, in the proper areas. If your daughter searches for those topics, then she will find them, but they will be described in an educational, informative manner. It would be far better for her to learn about these topics, if she has to, from Wikipedia, than from performing a Google search on such words.
If the main issue is that an innocuous word search on Commons led to sexual images, then that is something that needs to be fixed in their category system and something we can do. But if your issue is that sexual issues are discussed at all, i'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that, as these are topics that are encyclopedically covered, pornography included. SilverserenC19:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is luck of other sites on internet that can "educate" on the matter; I believe that Wikipedia must be different. Parents should have right to choose to educate a child on the matter themselves first. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it can be fixes in the "category system", they should be on a separate site, you may call it "Sexual Education Wikipedia", but it should be separate. I think that I have been harmed by the immages. I am over 50! What about a small child, a young girl or boy? I write for them, they can't write yet :) Some people who are very hurt can't write English at all, I can write in bad English, so I write for them ;) Natkabrown (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that we don't have a masturbation video in Commons. We have dozens and dozens and dozens, spread out over several different categories, including
That's along with 1,000+ still images of penises (all Caucasian, and not counting the 1000s of mobile phone camera images of penises that have been deleted). The question whether this material serves primarily educational or primarily exhibitionistic / titillating purposes seems to be as old as Commons.
I think that I these images shouldn't be in a different database. It's adult content. What should a school teacher do if a child in school will find such an image? What if this child is 8-9 years old and his parents had no chance to speak to him about the matter? We should give a chance to the parents to speak to the child first. Don't take this chance from the parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already know that Commons has a preponderance of such material. But I hope you are not suggesting, as Natkabrown is, that we should remove all sexual-related material altogether from it? I think a better method would be to remove all sexual images that are not currently being used in an article on one of the language Wikipedias. The upload of an image in Commons, in general in my opinion, should be predicated on using it somewhere, whether it being in an article or an article gallery or something to that effect. There's no use for Commons if unused images just sit there, especially when you're talking about sexual images. SilverserenC19:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons community generally takes the view that Commons serves public-domain media to the entire world, and not just to other Wikimedia projects. Even if this were not so, any unused image may become used tomorrow in one of the projects. If you are looking for an image in Commons to illustrate an article, it happens quite often that the best image you find is one that is presently unused; if all unused images were deleted, it would be a real loss. --JN46606:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This media is necessary to illustrate directly related topics, such as masturbation, and in that sense serves to benefit the public. If you do not want to learn about these topics, do not read those articles. If you want to read just the textual part of the articles, you may disable images in your browser. See Help:Options to not see an image. (Edit: after noting above that this image was stumbled upon during a search for relevant media, I will only note that any comprehensive, full-text search of Commons will naturally turn up sexual images unexpectedly, since ordinary terms are needed to describe them. The same is true of Google Images and any other media search resource - I have run across porn on Google Images searching for things as innocent as "clowns" or "Homer Simpson". Filtering to remove these images would be error-prone and damage the quality and comprehensiveness of the search.) Dcoetzee19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But guys, simply avoiding sexual topics, or using a simple software plug-in to block images, or maybe monitoring one's child's internet activity, instead of insisting that no one else can use educational resources on the matter would require not being a prude. That's just an unreasonable demand. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! I just found NUDITY on the internet! How revolting! I had better spend the next several hours browsing this awful content for, uh, research purposes! Resolute20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Goolge and other sites. They can host whatever they want. They are not a charity, so they don't have to work for public benefit. I wonder if UK Charity Commission will agree with you all about the matter. They clearly state on their site that we have to inform them of "serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries". http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/About_us/Complaining/issues_we_want_to_know_about.aspx I believe that it what is happening here. My obligation is to inform them and let them think about it. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google does a pretty good job of filtering out adult material (unless you specifically indicate that you want adult search results as well). People searching Commons have no way of doing that. If you search Google for images of a jumping ball, this is what you get. If you search Commons, the top search result is yet another masturbatory image. Are you really telling me that if users have the ability to filter such images out, to say "No thank you" to images of masturbation, that this damages the quality and comprehensiveness of the search? --JN46610:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the ordinary teachers in the schools are not so computer literate. Many schools allow children to use Wikipedia at school. Facebook is banned. Youtube is banned. Shall Wikipedia be banned as well? When teachers work with the kids they have a lot to think about. They have to think more about kid’s welfare and not to be frightened that some images from Wikipedia would hurt the kids. I didn’t know that Wikipedia hosts such images, neither my husband did. He was as appalled about it as me, if not to say more. He couldn’t look at them; he can’t even speak about it. My case is that a lot of people even don’t know about it. So some teachers at schools think that Wikipedia is safe. As I can see now it’s not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, inherently cannot be "safe" in the sense you use it. Anybody can put surprising, unpleasant, or taboo information or media into any article. That said, most kids seem be harmed a lot less by contact with a wide variety of ideas than their parents (or even unrelated moralists) want to assume. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons should have a search filter that makes it so that you have to check a sexual box to allow sexual images through. That seems self evident to me. Search filters are easy to set up too. SilverserenC19:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this isn't such an easy thing and an overly simplistic solution puts us at the start of a slippery slope. Different people will have very different ideas as to where to draw the boundary between what should be in such a filter and what shouldn't. So if we are going to do such a thing we need a complex system that allows for the fact that what offends mainstream public morality in Jeddah, London, and the US Bible Belt is going to differ. There are ways in which we could introduce such an image filter, but there are also ways that we have rightly ruled out. In particular we need to avoid systems that use our existing category system or that put the onus of tagging for "offensiveness" on the uploaders or other volunteers. If we were a site focussed on one particular culture we could endorse that culture's values and require all uploaders to mark any of their future uploads as "offensive" or otherwise (though we'd have a 12 million sized backlog of existing images, and we'd be scuppering our GLAM program). But we are a global site with an explicitly global remit, and that rules out any simple solution based on one culture's morality. Yes when I upload images I could respond to a tick box that asked me if I found an image offensive, or even one that asked me if I thought an image might be considered offensive by most people in the country I live in. But I couldn't be expected to know what would be offensive to cultures that I'm unfamiliar with, and while there are some concerns that I might share or regard as reasonable, there might be others that I would reject. So if we introduce a filter we need a complex solution that works for many different cultures, but doesn't require any of our volunteers to understand all those global cultures. For example a proposal I drafted at meta:Controversial content/Brainstorming/personal private filtersϢereSpielChequers22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said a search filter, not an image filter. And one geared specifically toward sexual images. I think you'd be able to tell if asked when uploading, "Is this image showcasing sexual acts", and give a positive or negative answer to that question. SilverserenC02:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, what is the current status on the image filter? I recall Sue saying that selection and implementation of one of the proposals in Meta would begin this month. Can you provide us with an update, or should I post to Foundation-l? --JN46609:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're still trying to deal with the fact that communities (German Wikipedia) and a number of users in other communities, including here, are opposed to the image filter as proposed. Not to mention that that poll thing they did was biased and the results are, thus, completely useless. SilverserenC19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image filter is on the agenda for this week's board meeting so rather than speak about it now, it'd be best if I speak about it after I've gotten the latest updates in San Francisco.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After SOPA, Muhammed article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures?
... After SOPA really this looks insanely hypocritical...
An enyclopaedia should be about facts and an objective view of the materials available, not hiding things away depending on whose pressure/lobbyist group is larger...
'WP:NOTCENSORED - "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."
You either are, or you aren't... If you're going to hide this stuff then it's going to be other "blasphemous" material next...
Why not go the whole way and just start letting people opt out from links and articles that could offend them, per Websense let people live in an maginary world of their own creation: Filter bubbles in internet search engines, BBC News Online
Umm, the situation at Muhammad has nothing at all to do with SOPA. For instance, the usage of calligraphy as the lead image instead of a depiction has been the situation on the article for at least two years, if not longer. Also, the arbitration case has nothing to do with keeping or removing the images. Such a decision is well beyond Arbcom's remit. The case is about the behaviour of some editors during such debates. Keeping or removing the depictions will be a community decision, and personally, I think it decidedly unlikely that they will be removed. However, please do consider leaving your opinions on that image poll discussion, though perhaps with less hysterics than displayed here. Regards, Resolute03:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's always been done that way" is not a good reason for anything. What if you were to do the same to pictures of Jesus, it's exactly the same thing as if it were replaced by big stencilled letters - to say that it's ok because it's in arabic is similar to people who get tattoos in kanji script they don't understand the meaning of (and people in Japan who get silly tattoos in english!)
Yes, I feel strongly on censorship (and put it bluntly rather than a page full of flowery language that a lot of people just end up skimming over or not reading, because I felt it important) but it's a bit insulting to call that "hysterics". --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What if you were to do the same to pictures of Jesus"? As far as I'm aware, there is little within the Christian tradition that suggests that depictions of Christ are in any way objectionable - your comparison is meaningless. As for the rest of your post, are you suggesting that Muslims cannot read Arabic? It seems to me that your post has nothing much to do with 'censorship' at all, and instead you are using the SOPA question to give vent on another issue entirely. If you wish to do this, I suggest you do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of horse, as example of inappropriate image for article "Cat dentistry". To User:Mss. Selina Kyle: Yes, Jimbo has discussed the issues of pictures in Islamic topics. The key concerns have been about showing images which are most relevant to the topic rather than about censoring "blasphemous" images (not really a concern here). In fact, it seemed as though some users purposely put unusual images into articles to appear offensive to many readers. It would be like starting an article about "Jesus of Nazareth" with a cartoon of Jesus dancing the Lindy Hop or some other unusual, inappropriate image. If you consider the displays in the Islamic Museum in Cairo, Egypt (core of the Arab World), there have not been many portraits of anyone in there. As an analogy, I have shown the photo (at right) of a horse as being an inappropriate image for an article on "Cat dentistry" (it would be better to have a picture of a cat's head, at least). That is why unusual images have been removed from articles about Islamic topics. English Wikipedia has tried to present articles with the typical commonplace treatment, such as with WP:COMMONNAME about article titles. However, several users have misunderstood that as being a "form of censorship" but other articles do allow such images (see article: "Images of Mohammed"). -Wikid77 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No More Blackouts
I have heard about Twitter's blackout in the result of the SOPA bill and I just want to say that it would be foolish to consider another copycat blackout if this is ever considered. We did this once and it disrupted and screwed up the Wiki. I still think that the means outweighed the ends and that we violated the trust of our community by doing this. Even though I'm not actually sure your doing this now, Could you still please heed the advice in case some other turn in events happens or some other website tries to put pressure on you? --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, as there is no serious discussion of another blackout any time soon. The first one was highly effective by any objective measure, and the principled point has been made and will be remembered. It worked - let's move on. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what this conversation is about. Twitter did not blackout due to SOPA and as far as I know has no plans to do so. Some people are protesting against twitter today due to their decision to censor tweets in some countries; I don't yet have enough information to have a strong opinion about that. It is impossible for "some other websites" to put pressure on me; I am not even sure what that means. But in any event, putting pressure on me personally wouldn't be very useful to anyone, since this is a community of very thoughtful and independent people!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I kinda associated that decision of people on Twitter to be a attempt to form a web blackout. I should have gotten more context before I asked about that.
Hi Jimbo, two of the White House petitions recently posted here on your talk page very quickly attained the 25,000 necessary signatures. I don't know whether you or your readers were responsible, but I thought you might want to know about some others that should interest you:
I absolutely agree with the first one (56 years is still too long to suit me, but it would be a good step). I don't know enough about the second one to comment at this moment. Will look into it on Monday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to take the time to say that I've been a long time Wikipedia fan and that I'm happy to help maintain Wikipedia as a useful resource. Thank you. Mr.Anon51518:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)=[reply]
What's next
I've been contacted by people in the movie industry who would like to sit down and talk to me about what kind of bill I would support. While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past, I also think this is a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address some of the real issues they have, AND a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address many of the real issues that we have. Let's discuss. What's your (realistic) dream copyright reform bill? As Mick sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes..."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I have great respect for you and trust you to do the right thing. That being said, I think that it would be wise for you to continue trying to disabuse the Hollywood moguls of the notion that you are an all-powerful CEO, and that if they convince you, they have won over Wikipedia. As the most prominent spokesperson, you did a good job of that during the blackout. Take a group of editors to the meeting. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I don't think anyone is going to try to convince me of anything anyway. :-) What I want to do in this discussion (which is progressing nicely for the most part) is to be able to talk with a higher degree of confidence about what things people think are important. As I will say below, I don't really have any choice about saying something, so I think a big part of doing my job well is to have well-articulated and balanced basic positions in mind when I am asked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we'd be drafting any law - I am personally certainly unqualified to do so, but I do think we have an opportunity to make it clear that some things that haven't been on the agenda, should be on the agenda.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reduction in the copyright term length. Life + 70 years is way, way too long. Something on the order of 15 years is optimal says an academic paper on the subject. Repeal of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (and similar provisions in global laws) - DRM is bad for consumers - see Cory Doctorow's speech at 28c3 on the "Coming War on General Purpose Computing". Strict liability for those falsely submitting takedown requests. Above all else we need evidence-based policy. No more legislation based on unpublished studies. -- M2Ys4U(talk)22:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reduction to 70 years would be a start. One of the reasons progress in regulating copyright on the Internet has been so slow is that the US has dragged its feet for so long in terms of harmonising with the Berne convention. And the blame for that lies squarely with the US entertainment industry.
Realistically, I don't think they'll be giving any quid-pro-quo, though.
I think it is more realistic to ask for enforcement led by an agency rather than going directly through the courts (this is a feature of the OPEN proposal), with the agency being also strongly geared towards the protection of websites showing reasonable diligence. This means preserving the concept of safe harbour, whilst recognising that clear abuse of it may be actionable in the future.
If you are not already, you should be talking to EFF, Creative Commons, Internet Archive and so on and ensuring that everybody is on the same page. Wikipedia should not speak unilaterally. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Realistically, I don't think they'll be giving any quid-pro-quo, though." - Then what is the point in having talks with them? Surely they cannot expect that the term lengths and enforcement measures relating to the copying monopoly can only go one way? If the talks are only about how to mitigate the cultural and technological damages of their self-interest then reformists and other interested parties should not legitimise their actions. -- M2Ys4U(talk)22:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOPA/PIPA and copyright terms are separate matters. What this meeting is about is how do the entertainment guys get what they want without posing a threat to the Internet guys. If Jimmy goes in there saying "I'm OK with you threatening our existence a little bit if we can get ten years shaved off copyright terms in return" then he's just going to look a little foolish. --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking purely of what I think may be achievable, I think a reduction in the term of copyright is very achievable, particularly if it only applies to new creations, i.e. let them have the ridiculous extensions to their existing works. Speaking in terms of Net present value it turns out that the dollar value today of years 70-95 (for example) is nearly zero under almost any sensible assumptions. It's easy for them to give it up, and it's a step in the right direction for us.
That wasn't my point, of course we [i.e. not the MPAA & supporters] should object to all moves to curtail our rights. My point is that the entire system is already stacked against the "consumer" in a huge way (not to mention the fact that the line between consumer and creator is almost non-existent now). Any reform of the copying monopoly must come with changes favouring the public domain and consumer rights. To do otherwise will be to bend ourselves over the barrel with a bottle of lube in our hands while whispering "be gentle" to the likes of the MPAA. -- M2Ys4U(talk)00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A regulatory system that gave artists a reasonable incentive to continue to produce new content, whilst not enabling big corporations to stifle innovation, creativity and indeed the conservation and propagation of our cultural heritage. That isn't going to be an easy match because the interests of performers, owners of intellectual property, and the wider public don't always align. There's also the practical issue that legislation designed to prevent people filesharing someone's movie or musical recording doesn't work well when extended to a couple of paragraphs of text. That said a dialogue is a good idea. I doubt that the Hollywood studios who want to protect their films from being pirated really wanted a law that would have enabled vandals to take down Wikipedia by copying a paragraph of text from an offline copyrighted source and then reporting the site as containing copy-violations. But don't get to chummy with them - our interests lie in openness and there are some whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. ϢereSpielChequers22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that.
This is a bit of a pet issue of mine, but at the very least my dream copyright reform bill would close the loophole on sound recordings (currently all sound recordings not released into the public domain, even those published before 1923, are still under copyright. The earliest that copyrighted sound recordings may enter the public domain is 2067!). Repealing the Sonny Bono act wouldn't hurt either. Reducing the copyright time period by a few more years (decades?) would be ideal, but that isn't at all likely. ThemFromSpace23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I think a reduction in term of copyright isn't impossible - as long as there is some grandfathering of works currently under excessively long terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The period of copyright should be a fixed quantity that does not depend in any way on the duration of the author's life, or anything else that is variable or that isn't printed in the book itself. James500 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition of scale (by size or number of page views), 501(c) organizations / S&P 500 or similar status, number of challenged items should be considered for timeliness requirements and penalties of response. As should having a deliberate process for identifying individuals with ability to remove content, pending a deliberate review. Regular editors do this, too: removal, explanation, restoration, and justification. Note that identifying and resolving this issue were both internal and took just over 5 days. Short term removal was absolutely the best immediate response, and if I remember, my comparisons took a couple of hours. But 3.8 million articles and ~100 edits/minute? Dru of Id (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that, as someone who was opposed to the initial blackout, I'm opposed to Wikipedia digging into the political game any deeper than it already is. One instance of political bias is, while not ethically proper in my opinion, it's permissible as a simple brain belch, a loss of common intelligence to push a political ideal on behalf of certain people. I have a major issue with Wikipedia trying to lose more face by becoming more politically involved. Inviting, but improper. Within hours of a 'law' that had anything whatsoever to do with this encyclo going public, either some of our own people would begin to edit pages about certain people saying "____ Representative voted opposing the new bill proposed, that was partially written by Jimmy Wales, founder (co-founder?) of Wikipedia" or a member of the outside media would directly tie us to someone who voted for or against the bill.
Moreover, where does it end? I'm by no means impartial, as I don't think it's truly possible to be impartial unless you simply don't use your mind whilst writing. What bugs me is, after this second foray into politics, then what? Backing certain politicians? Partys? Agendas?
I'm opposed to the SOPA and PIPA crapolA that everyone else here opposes, but in the same vein, once you lose credibility, you will never win it all back, regardless of what you do. If White Star Line was still operating under the old name, you think any of their competition could ignore sticking a few "And WE have captains who OBEY ice warnings!" ads? I was opposed to the bass ackwards way the initial blackout was carried out, I was opposed to Wikipedia involving itself in politics in any form, and I am opposed to Wikipedia becoming more involved. (Sorry Jimbo, but to a lot of people, you ARE Wikipedia, and it does what you tell it to. Whether you can or can't isn't the question. As the face of the project, you really don't need to be dragging it through whatever mud you like the looks of. Wikipedia has, for the time being, a lot going for it. Once it, and more directly, you begin to dig into politics, it stands to lose a lot of credibility. An encyclopedia without credibility is just one site clogging up Google every time you search for something.)
I realize and recognize that my statement doesn't matter, because a 'committee' will vote on it regardless. And, those who follow you directly and bow in your shadow will mindlessly follow, as they did with the blackout. My own suspicion says, the whole group could be totally opposed to something, if you came along and said you liked it, there would be a LOT of "Well, on second thought, Jimbo has a point and I change my vote". For better or worse, where you go, a whole lot of this group would follow because of admiration. I can't say I'm one of them, but I don't follow blindly. Actually, I've never known me to follow at all unless I liked where the group I was with was going. Nothing personal against you, you just draw a lot of pull from many people. It happens.) As I see it, Wikipedia has no place in politics, and therefore shouldn't try to create a place. Copyrights are so screwy that it's sickening, but at the same time, speed limit laws are screwy too, and I don't think it's Wikipedias business to be messing with either.
I'll catch trouble for this, but this is partially why I've hated seeing you make any type of definitive statement; people will follow you even if the idea isn't all that great. Even if it undermine what I feel is what this place is about. I've only been an 'editor' for a few days, but I've been a faithful reader for a few years. Bring on the hate mail. ;) Skweeky (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up above I promised to explain why I think I don't have a choice to stay out of it. I am going to be asked my views by the press at every available opportunity for the next several months. ACTA is going to come to a head in June when the European Parliament votes on it. (That's the current schedule, as I understand it.) So I think it's valuable for me to have some extensive talks with the community so that I can get a sense of some middle-of-the-road (for our community) proposals that are also potentially achievable. What I mean by middle-of-the-road is stuff that almost everyone would say "Yeah, that's OK" to, even if some of us would want a lot more than that, or some of us would want a lot less than that. In no circumstance other than a real mandate backed by a strong vote would I attempt to speak "for the community" - but I have a responsibility to the community to both emphasize that I am speaking for myself at all times, and to put forward ideas that the community broadly agrees with.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Skweeky, you have every right to hold those opinions and also to express them in appropriate venues. By the way, welcome to active Wikipedia editing after reading for a few years, and my welcome is sincere. However, it seems to me that you are not addressing Jimbo's question that started this thread. We are not talking about the blackout, but rather about what kind of copyright enforcement bill would be acceptable to the Wikipedia community going forward. Your thoughts on that specific matter would be appreciated. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I made my stance clear, and apologize for my lack of clarity. I'm not in favor of any sort of bill being put forth by anyone on behalf of the 'interests' of this site. I agree wholeheartedly that the laws stink, but I disagree that it is the business of a so-called impartial and unbiased source to be trying to change them. The creation of bills is, in my opinion, the job of politicians, not encyclopedia operators. This, as well as the blackout, are both political, and therefore, I'd rather see wikipedia and WMF left out of it. Leave the politicians to the politics, as they do that best. Leave the chronicling of knowledge to Wikipedia, as we do that best. By the same token, I'm not a big fan of politicians coming here and editing pages relative to politics without reliable source. I'm a fence-building kind of person, and I like people to stay on their own side of the fence. Skweeky (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can really say is that I disagree with you. I think our chosen task of writing a free encyclopedia in no way precludes us from entering the public debate to explain why certain legal conditions are necessary for our work and others are useful for our work, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disabling copyright protection is a grossly ill-considered position. Protection of intellectual property rights was a long struggle (see the Mark Twain quote I earlier posted on this page on [6]) (yes - it may go too far in some cases - but the baby-bathwater anaology still holds true), and for Wikipedia to be seen in any way as an opponent of them is against the core foundations of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are saying here. I haven't seen anyone here in favor of removing all copyright protection. And I don't think that Wikipedia being seen as advocating for a less draconian position on, for example, de minimis filesharing than the MPAA would like is in any way "against the core foundations of Wikipedia". --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would support the killing of ACTA, which would restore peace on the internet once more and a retreat to the old copyright laws of the internet. – Anonymous Plarem(Usertalk)18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create a wiki for this law, the structure of which could perhaps be used as a prototype for working on various other laws. It's a new direction, but worth exploring. Start by providing the full wording for existing law(s), SOPA and PIPA, along with discussions of the pros and cons of each. Include Lawrence Lessig's proposals along with other major proposals and alternatives. Then facilitate discussion on the purpose of copyright law, what helps and what hurts innovation, how and when legal restrictions and regulations are useful, etc. This should NOT be limited to discussions of x number of years of y type of protection (the existing structure, simply arguing over the number), but should include other ideas such as strong protection for a short period of time, followed by lesser protection for another period of time. Whatever. The important thing is to focus on the intended goal, and bring forth and fully discuss some new ideas. Living in a globalized society, copyright laws need to be global as well. Wikipedians are global, so they should be able to represent various points of view on this. Good luck. 76.192.40.75 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great idea. I might do that. It'd be interesting to see if a very broad effort - reaching beyond just Wikipedians and into a lot of other communities - could generate a reasonable consensus on what should be done, one that lots of people could point to as something that the Internet community generally supports. I don't know if that's possible, but I think it probably is. One concern I have here is that the "next steps" are going to involve "Silicon Valley versus Hollywood" compromises, with all of us who aren't either being left out of the equation. In general, I think our interests are more closely aligned with, say, Google's than with the MPAA. But they aren't perfectly aligned, and stuff that we care a lot about (orphan works) aren't really much of a concern to Google. Google is mainly interested in not having to pre-moderate everything; we share that concern as a community, because that would seriously break how we do our work. But we care about a lot of other stuff too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with outing and harassment on external websites
Jimbo, I think I'm right in saying that you've been a strong advocate of protecting our community members against privacy violations and harassment. A case came to my attention recently of a Wikipedian who posted the real name, home address and phone number of another Wikipedian who had that same day received a real-world threat relating to his role on the Commons. The issue is currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal.
If this privacy violation had happened on Wikipedia I'm sure it would have resulted in an immediate block. However, it happened on an external website (one dedicated to discussing Wikipedia - you can guess which it is). I have seen the suggestion from time to time that we can't do anything about off-wiki conduct by Wikipedians (despite what WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment says). That might be true if their conduct has nothing to do with Wikipedia but in this particular case there was a clear attempt to influence things happening here and on Commons, by using tactics forbidden on Wikipedia. As a general rule, would you say that it shouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedians to sidestep prohibitions on certain activities on-wiki by moving off-wiki to do them there? From my perspective, I take the view that if Wikipedians have issues with each other about their on-wiki activities they should try to resolve them on-wiki, rather than seeking to use off-wiki forums to evade Wikipedia's bans on harassment, outing, canvassing etc. I'd be interested to know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman, I was just about to leave a message on your talk page reminding you that I'm waiting for you to strike your misleading, false, and inflammatory statements on ANI, and provide that apology that you promised me. I'll leave it here instead. Please try to get to it soon. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silly season redux
"Genealogical" claims have been made at Mitt Romney and at Pratt-Romney family which are unsourced, improperly sourced (source does not say what the claim says the source says) or which are not RS sources in the first place. There are, by the way, zero reliable sources using the term "Pratt-Romney" and the entire 50K screed seems UNDUE, SYN and OR as a minimum. Zero news sources. Zero books (other than Wikipedia article "reprints.") Read it and see <g>. Silly season is with us with a vengeance, indeed. Also see the discussions about "santorum" and the "frothy mixture" POV-ers seeking to get "spreading....." listed as many times on Wikipedia as humanly possible. Cheers - Wikipedia dang well should do something about the shear viciousness being exemplified in some articles. Collect (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IOW synthesis to make the two groups a single "political family"? Sorry - I find synthesis and original research to be a teensy bit improper, especially when the article has BLP connections. And much of the "material" is from non-reliable sources (not better than the quadrennial "presidential genealogy" puff pastries found in magazines). And the "family tree" is absolutely synthesis. Do you really feel [7] is a "reliable source" for anything? Or [8]? Or [9]? The entire article is pretty much fully unsourced by Wikipedia standards. I think you likely should remove all the non-RS material and see just how little is left there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
