Wikipediocracy

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)

Hi, an issue was recently brought to my attention, and I'm curious if you see a way to address it within Commons policy. I'm sure you're familiar with the "toothbrush" search issue; this is similar. The first result for this search, which an external site has linked as part of its information about stroke (the medical condition), is a bit of a shock to most viewers. I thought I'd ask you because you're the only person who's put this image anywhere, and because I know you have a lot of experience managing files that involve nudity and sexuality. It seems to me that we would do better in fulfilling our educational mission if people could search our site for a word like "stroke" with reasonable confidence that they would not run into something that would surprise or offend them. I know that addressing that general principle is a big and complex issue, but do you think there is anything to be done about this particular instance? -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Definitely NSFW. A .gif of a man masturbating is the first hit at commons when you search for "one stroke."

Apparently, an external website auto-generated a link to this search in an article on the malady, without knowing what it led to:

Hi, an issue was recently brought to my attention, and I'm curious if you see a way to address it within Commons policy. I'm sure you're familiar with the "toothbrush" search issue; this is similar. The first result for this search, which an external site has linked as part of its information about stroke (the medical condition), is a bit of a shock to most viewers. I thought I'd ask you because you're the only person who's put this image anywhere, and because I know you have a lot of experience managing files that involve nudity and sexuality. It seems to me that we would do better in fulfilling our educational mission if people could search our site for a word like "stroke" with reasonable confidence that they would not run into something that would surprise or offend them. I know that addressing that general principle is a big and complex issue, but do you think there is anything to be done about this particular instance? -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:Definitely NSFW. A .gif of a man masturbating is the first hit at commons when you search for "one stroke."

Apparently, an external website auto-generated a link to this search in an article on the malady, without knowing what it led to:

Hi, an issue was recently brought to my attention, and I'm curious if you see a way to address it within Commons policy. I'm sure you're familiar with the "toothbrush" search issue; this is similar. The first result for this search, which an external site has linked as part of its information about stroke (the medical condition), is a bit of a shock to most viewers. I thought I'd ask you because you're the only person who's put this image anywhere, and because I know you have a lot of experience managing files that involve nudity and sexuality. It seems to me that we would do better in fulfilling our educational mission if people could search our site for a word like "stroke" with reasonable confidence that they would not run into something that would surprise or offend them. I know that addressing that general principle is a big and complex issue, but do you think there is anything to be done about this particular instance? -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an absolutely useless file. If it were an ogg video with full length, great, but what we have here is a 0.2 sec gif of some guy jacking off which gives us nothing that is above and beyond what we already have. There's nothing educational in it at all. I think we need to look at the rest of our GIF files too, because given our video capability, they are somewhat redundant. russavia (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - While I understand what you mean, I don't think I agree. Let's face it, male masturbation is just 0.5s of action repeated over and over and over... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe for you it is Mattbuck. I am sure if you peruse the rest of our collection here on Commons, you might be able to spice that 0.5s into something more varied and interesting. russavia (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Keep - While I understand what you mean, I don't think I agree. Let's face it, male masturbation is just 0.5s of action repeated over and over and over... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe for you it is Mattbuck. I am sure if you peruse the rest of our collection here on Commons, you might be able to spice that 0.5s into something more varied and interesting. russavia (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

plix tixiplik wrote:Comcast ISP in San Francisco and trolling in broken English is a give-away.

Alison wrote:I can see Eric's IP addresses on here for the last few months and guess what - that IP isn't in there. Wrong location, wrong ISP, etc, etc ...

thekohser wrote:No, didn't you get the news? All Comcast ISP users in San Francisco are Eric Barbour, even though he doesn't live in San Francisco, and (I think) he doesn't subscribe to Comcast. Russavia has made this clear.

Vigilant wrote: Photographs by Peter Klashorst

It is ludicrous and wrong, and likely racist. Nothing can justify it.

thekohser wrote:

the jimbo wrote:Nothing can justify it.

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote: Photographs by Peter Klashorst

Speaking of Klashorst, apparently someone thought it would increase world knowledge by adding one of his ridiculous photos (NSFW) to a Russian Wikinews (who knew there was such a thing?) article documenting an interesting Middle Eastern survey of how people think Muslim women should dress.

Jimbo's reaction, to his credit, is right and proper:

It is ludicrous and wrong, and likely racist. Nothing can justify it.

Russavia and Odder have to be behind this comic spectacle somehow, right?

Clipperton wrote:Posting for the record, to the most topical thread I could find based on the now infamous 'toothbrush' keyword:

'Searching for 'pants' gives at least 2 or 3 adult images on the first page of results.

Zoloft wrote:"Necklace" does as well. The thing is riddled with innapropriate 'results.'