Wikipediocracy

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

Vigilant wrote:Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.

Go to the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_penis Human penis] category at commons (NSFW, obviously) and notice something: most of the images are identified using scientific language, as in "flaccid caucasian penis" and "human penis and scrotum". Three, however, are identified as "black cock". The source? No source, of course, it's an upload of "own work" by a single purpose account. Now, to be clear, I do not think that the predominantly male and white editors at commons intend to be actively racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951925

Vigilant wrote:Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.

keemanan wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.

Topic obsessives who post thousands of edits a day are not going to be worried about a few part time objectors, especialy when the obsessives already have advanced permissions to block anyone they want - The foundation needs to cut the commons loose - not a penny more in fundings from donations - ASAP - goodbye and good luck

Vigilant wrote:Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.

I'm undecided about what I think - even in fantasy -

Vigilant wrote: Just revoke all advanced permissions.
The WMF wiki looks like a dry run for GTFO commons.
It's the WMF's hosting, domains, software, etc, etc.

If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

Vigilant wrote:If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

Anroth wrote:There are some genuinely good photos and other media there. Its a shame it gets drowned in shit.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

lilburne wrote: Seems he was shocked that Commons had Black cock.

Go to the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_penis Human penis] category at commons (NSFW, obviously) and notice something: most of the images are identified using scientific language, as in "flaccid caucasian penis" and "human penis and scrotum". Three, however, are identified as "black cock". The source? No source, of course, it's an upload of "own work" by a single purpose account. Now, to be clear, I do not think that the predominantly male and white editors at commons intend to be actively racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951925

Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all.

Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others.

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?

Mason wrote:

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?

That is odd. If you search for the "purpose" of Commons, you should get back a penis. Must be a bug.

Vigilant wrote:Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112

I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.

That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though

DanMurphy wrote:

That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though

Yes, the banter at Wales talk page is good for only two things: As evidence that he can't be ignorant of the extent of the problems,and to demonstrate that he exercises no influence or authority over the various projects that the Wikimedia Foundation collects so much money to run.

Fixing the problems at commons would be very easy: Ban bot uploads, require all uploads to either come from the rights holder themselves (that is, no flickr, ever) or with iron clad evidence they're in the public domain, require full model consent forms for all naked pictures to be on file with the Foundation (as are required for the porn industry), and rewrite the rules of that funhouse to reflect all this.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the power to make all this happen by snapping its fingers. It will not do so. Wales will not fight to make it so.

DanMurphy wrote:
Fixing the problems at commons would be very easy: Ban bot uploads, require all uploads to either come from the rights holder themselves (that is, no flickr, ever) or with iron clad evidence they're in the public domain, require full model consent forms for all naked pictures to be on file with the Foundation (as are required for the porn industry), and rewrite the rules of that funhouse to reflect all this.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the power to make all this happen by snapping its fingers. It will not do so. Wales will not fight to make it so.

DanMurphy wrote:Basically, I'd envision rewriting the rules so that the bad apples hands are tied, but tossing out the porn extremists certainly wouldn't hurt.

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?

Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.

Outsider wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

Why should a change of ownership have that effect, unless the WMF get Google to "tweak" their search algorithm?

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?

Don't you realize that image does serve a "purpose"? It decorates the Swahili Wikipedia article about Mkundu (anus), which essentially reads:

Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not for you, or for me. It's for "that little girl in Africa" to learn more about her anus.

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?

Don't you realize that image does serve a "purpose"? It decorates the Swahili Wikipedia article about Mkundu (anus), which essentially reads:

Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not for you, or for me. It's for "that little girl in Africa" to learn more about her anus.

I think that commons policy is enforced inconsistently and also needs some revision. I think that some of the people who are admins at commons are among the weakest admins that we have in all the projects, and that this is a core part of the problem. I think that far too many people on both sides are prone to framing this as having anything at all to do with "prudishness", rather than having to do with what are fundamentally issues of human dignity. I encourage anyone who is concerned about these issues to coordinate carefully, get involved at commons, and work to improve things. I don't have the time, and my own personal conflicts with people at commons lead me to think that I would do more harm than good trying to get personally involved.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 21:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but who said Commons was ''your'' apartment and not my apartment? or the apartment of the people who actually do watch over its content and generally get rid of many troublesome things at substantial personal legal risk. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

keemanan wrote:...his Amish location - http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.15.116.59

thekohser wrote:

keemanan wrote:...his Amish location - http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.15.116.59

Ye gads -- dial-up access. Poor peasant.

Ming wrote:

thekohser wrote:

keemanan wrote:...his Amish location - http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.15.116.59

Ye gads -- dial-up access. Poor peasant.

I don't know that I would assume that a five-year-old IP address was still owned by the same provider, though.

keemanan wrote:Who is this user Wnt ? - a total ass - a free speecher beyond comparison , a rejector of all wiki policies

Why doesn't the Foundation step in and say, "no"? The Foundation needs to be the adult in the room and say, "no, we're not running a pornography website here". You're never going to convince people to change their moral values and if someone sees no problem with hosting pornography in plain view of children on something that's supposed to be an encyclopedia, no amount of rehashing this topic is going to make them see the light. The Foundation needs to be the adult in the room, require that useless explicit files be deleted, and require that the ones retained be completely excludable by some sort of filter. [....] I'm sure that the same people who want Wikipedia/Commons to be a porn site will then want to argue that there's no difference between an encyclopedic image of nudity (like the one found at human body vs the more closeups of pierced genitalia with semen, but I would think that the adults in the room could make the differentiation. It's time for an adult to step in and just fix the problem.

Nonsense. I've gone on the talk page for that policy something like three times already trying to get them to repeal that part of the policy, and every time I get nothing but ''Nein, nein, nein!'' ... even though nobody and I mean ''nobody'' enforces the policy they have written. I don't pretend to understand that, I just keep commenting on it in the hope somebody will do something someday. But the thing is, there's a difference between holding a one-time wide-ranging discussion in a special noindexed forum to decide whether a user, to a ''preponderance of the evidence'', may be blocked based on child protection concerns - and going on widely read talk pages like this and, for any small reason, repeating claims that the person is definitely X. I was persuaded, to a preponderance of the evidence, in the Commons discussion - I never reached reasonable doubt, but I didn't think I needed to. I think other people were changing their opinions as the discussion proceeded, and more might have joined and continued to push the vote in the direction I'd gone. But the thing is, we're talking about a living person who someone can fairly easily figure out who it is we're speaking of, and according to stuff like BLP we don't make negative assertions about them confidently based on preponderance of evidence, or indeed, even on 'reasonable doubt' of an open talk or administrative forum. We'd need multiple secondary sources independent of the subject and all that. So while I favor having some leeway to discuss these things, we should avoid pretending that we really know ''for sure'' when there are so many ways for bullies online to deceive us. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:You can't make this up.
Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...

Woden.Ragnarok wrote:I'm confused: as a caucasian male who suffers from a rare and unfortunate pigmentation condition, what file name should I give if I want to photograph my junk and upload it to commons

am I being racist if I describe my genitalia by its color?

Captain Occam wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... nothing.3F

Russavia seems to think the IPs posting in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page are EricBarbour and Gregory Kohs. Not many people commenting in that section seem to agree, but Mathsci apparently does, since he's tagged one of the IPs as an EricBarbour sock.

EricBarbour, was this you? If it wasn't, someone should remove the sock tag. In the discussion there, Russavia's accusation doesn't seem to be finding much support from anyone else.

Captain Occam wrote:EricBarbour, was this you?

::: Matt, I don't believe it's justifiable to ban people simply because they participate in the Fuckwit Forum. On the other hand, it does serve a useful purpose in red-flagging that whatever they say is here most likely (a) pointless (b) trollish (c) dickish (d) stupid or (e) some combination of (a) to (d). Think of it as a filter, if you like. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

EricBarbour wrote:Mathsci and Russavia owe me an apology. Plain and simple.

They're going down the same stupid road that Will Beback tried in 2009.

And just in case of oversight, here is what Prioryman posted on that thread which was "redacted".

::: Matt, I don't believe it's justifiable to ban people simply because they participate in the Fuckwit Forum. On the other hand, it does serve a useful purpose in red-flagging that whatever they say is here most likely (a) pointless (b) trollish (c) dickish (d) stupid or (e) some combination of (a) to (d). Think of it as a filter, if you like. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)