Slashdot Mirror
Wikimedia Confusion Swirls In Wake of Porn Charges
Contridictory stories are circulating after Fox News's pursuing of Wikimedia Foundation for hosting pornography reportedly resulted in Jimmy Wales personally removing some pornographic material from its servers, then giving up his special editing privileges under pressure. Fox News reported that Wikimedia is "in chaos"; this report was picked up by VentureBeat and others. Wales denies that there is any chaos (any more than usual, that is) at Wikimedia. The Fox News report apparently relied on a single unnamed source, and Wales said, "They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense." The background: on April 27 Fox News published an exclusive report about porn on Wikimedia servers, then followed up by contacting organizations that had donated to Wikimedia to ask them what they thought about it. In the aftermath, Wales took a position in support of purging porn from Wikimedia Commons. This all started when estranged Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger contacted the FBI with an allegation of child porn on Wikipedia.
"Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales is no longer able to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content, sources say. Essentially, they say, he has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites to having the same capabilities of a low-level administrator."
Ignorance of the Masses => Democracy
Will we actually notice any changes?
I can't wait for Murdoch to get soundly trounced by the internet he hates so much.
Larry Sanger totally and completely discredited himself by starting this allegation fiasco. From a pursuer of an alternative editing strategy (which, despite shortcomings, was addressing a real (or perceived as real) problem of content quality of Wikipedia due to editorial policy, he turned himself into a cheapshot troll that will resort to the dirtiest tactic possible to attract attention. Even if his allegations were genuine (which clearly they aren't, on numerous points of principle), he'll never be able to get over the sour grapes analogy which will forever become his soubriquet.
Even the minor PR damage caused to Wales (and I really think Wales was just looking for a reason/excuse to give up his adminship, as he was realizing "benevolent dictatorship" was no longer a fitting model for a project the scope and developmental maturity of Wikipedia) will not outweight the devastating damage to any professional reputation Sanger still had before this point.
Bye Larry. From a legitimate oppositioner to a resentful clown, all by a single, stupid, stupid decision. How sad.
"They don't even bother to contact me before publishing nonsense."
FOX is in the business of publishing nonsense.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As soon as censorship is mentioned, media coverage (pro and anti) will jump in the fray. Not good for an organization committed to facts (in principle, anyway), not controversy. Fox and "family" groups will always contend Wikipedia is not going far enough regardless of anything they do. What I see happening (unfortunately) is the de-sexualization of topics (i.e. stick figures for examples and clinical language for descriptions) now that this can of worms has opened. This will inevitably lead to a loss of information, as Wikipedia's rabid destruction of lists and articles on rare subjects has told us time and time again.
No one will die, if Wiki has a few porn images.
Fox News, Cheerleaded an illegal war that resulted in over a million + dead.
Porn > War
Porn > Fox News
Porn > All Religions
Porn = Normal.
Wiki... Do your porn thing baby.
Medical books, specially pediatric ones, if they show any picture of the topic of the book.
Hysteria can bring down a civilization.
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
Normally, if you want to report a crime, you do it with an off the record quiet message to the authorities, which allows them to try to actually catch the people committing the crime in the act. Normally, if you want to get a project you are related to to stop doing something you worry might be a crime, you first contact the people responsible; especially those you believe aren't involved, and try to get them to do something about it. If, as it seems, Sanger went to the media first of all then that speaks volumes about his motivation.
Having said that; Wales is probably an okay guy, but his position in Wikipedia has been totally inappropriate since his personal life and finances intruded on the project. Once Wikipedia set its self up as an independent foundation all his power should have been derived from some clear democratic process in that foundation. The stupid thing (and the one which shows that he's a completely inappropriate person for the role) is the fact that he could probably have quite easily got himself elected president of the board or something and then none of the arguments against him would be nearly as effective. What Sanger has done may be a bit late, but it's definitely one of the strongest hopes of strengthening the Wikipedia project.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
...More like Fox News published a story with one anonymous source that didn't say anything significant, and kdawson decided to take it seriously for some bizarre reason.
I suspect that Fox & others like to pour hate on it because it's easy and cheap to do so. There is always someone with a a bruised ego (e.g. perennial cry babies like Larry Sanger) and with so many disputed articles, it's not hard to sensationalize some angle. In the case of Fox I think they are also motivated to pour hate on the site because (despite its flaws) does strive for impartiality, citation and a neutral point of view. It's also free.
I'm pretty sure that the "porn" in question was a couple of ALBUM COVERS that were sold openly in the 70's in both the US and Britain.
To allow those albums to be sold openly in record stores for DECADES and then later decide that it is worthy of being classed as the worst offense that humans have ever committed seems a bit, well, like the puritans are taking back the world.
Considering that he's been making these kinds of comments on various subjects for a few years, no I don't think Larry saw it coming. I'm always amused by the deference granted to Sanger. He left a successful albeit chaotic project to form a total failure. He didn't fail because he lacked startup funds or media attention (he was funded and the newspapers ate up the Citizendium breakoff). He failed because he misjudged the nature of the internet--badly. What makes you think he has some grand strategic vision?
Sounds like Faux News making a big deal about rumors and gossip.
Boredom is bliss.
...any insufficiently moderated forum will turn into 4chan.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
While main focus of Wikipedia are historical articles about things that happened in the past (and either passed away or continue to exist and function), both Wikipedia main page and Wikinews have a high quality recent news - independent, free, ad free, from all over the world, with no corporate control, in essence everything Fox is opposed to.
So attacking Wikipedia is simply attacking the competitor.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The true genius sticks to pico/nano.
Judas Priest people. Are you gonna start making pigs wear clothes, and babies cover their nakedness (ohnoes!). "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty." - Pope John Paul II
THIS is not pornography: (Although it is not safe for work.) It is Homo sapiens in his natural state. And that is all the wikipedia shows - it does Not display pornography.
http://www.domai.com/
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Nudity is not the crime.
Possession of photos of the nudity is not the crime.
The involuntary sex is the crime, and the man who did the act is the criminal. Get it straight. I'm sick and tired of seeing people get arrested for victimless crimes (like smoking weed while watching Star Trek at home - no victim? No crime).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Sounds like they hired J. Jonah Jameson to run their news network. I guess they did not realize they guy came from a comic book instead of a role model from journalism school.
>>>The victims are the people who have to pay more for their taxes or health insurance to cover the increased costs of paying for treatment of the various diseases caused by smoking
By that reasoning, the government should be able to tell you to stop eating hamburgers, fries, et cetera. Also they should be able to limit your intake to just 2000 calories.
BUT I prefer to live in freedom, not slavery.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Thanks for your email. Wikipedia remains dedicated to providing an encyclopaedia free from censorship, and that includes topics some might consider inappropriate (after all, if we were to censor things based on the idea that somebody, somewhere, might find it inappropriate, we'd never write anything). While we are not censored by default, we must consider our legal responsibilities; there were some worries that we may violate the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act with the collection, which is what led to the spate of image deletions. We remain dedicated to our original goal, and will (usually) keep images if they prove helpful in an encyclopaedic context. Thank you for your message of support for Wikipedia Yours sincerely, Oliver Keyes
^^vv<><>BA
Frankly, every time I watch Fox News I get the distinct impression I _am_ watching porn. Bad porn, at that.