Wikimedia "in chaos" after co-founder Jimmy Wales steps down

After Fox News broke a story in April about Wikimedia hosting pornographic images on its servers, company co-founder and president Jimmy Wales started single-handedly purging the Wikimedia databases of all things deemed pornographic. These actions have been extremely controversial, especially within the Wikimedia editors' circle, and Fox news now reports that Wales has given up his role as top-level content administrator, letting the community completely control the site. A source tells Fox News that nobody is in charge now. "It's chaos," says the source. 

The stepping down came in response to a rebellion of sorts from the editors who vehemently disagreed with Wales handling of the pornography. After Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, reported to the FBI the existence of illegal pornography on Wikimedia Commons, Fox News started digging for information. Fox News had contacted big companies who donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment, and they began contacting Wikimedia for an explanation. After the calls started coming in, Wales began his conquest against the pornography, deleting a lot himself, and delegating the task to various administrators and editors. Although Wikimedia denies breaking any laws, and emphasizing the continual moderation of pages by its many editors, Sanger defended his actions by saying that he saw the images himself, and that he knew that according to the law, he would be indicted as co-founder if charges were filed. 

According to many, Wikimedia is a standard for open content creation and organization, and allowing one person to have total control over its future, message, morals, and content completely obviates the purpose of the platform. The other side of the argument is that Wikimedia is meant to be accessible to students, families, and other content-wary users who are encouraged to use the platform as a research tool; some feel that allowing obscene content into the database will restrict some very large demographics from using the site. This is the reason Sanger cites for writing the FBI letter in the first place, Wales defended his actions in an email:

"Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies….
 
"We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.
 
"Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible policy discussion."
 
Needless to say, many are beyond feeling like their toes were stepped on, and one administrator wrote:
 
“If this is an emergency situation requiring a justified, immediate, unilateral, king-like massive action, I regret Mr. Wales didn't take the time to explain the emergency to us. By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other. This lack of respect and of equality of vote should be extremely well argumented and the reasons transparently communicated. Otherwise, trust, faith and adhesion to the [Wikimedia Foundation] values dissolve. I don't think we should let this happen. Mr. Wales, I hope you enter reason and dialogue realms again….”
Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Could PSP2 be announced at E3, Move coming in September?

Next Story

Ubuntu to drop Firefox for Chrome?

62 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

There never was any "obscene content". It was paintings, they were for the purpose of art and not pornography.

This is a win chalked up to Fox and their ridiculous agenda, ruining the web for everyone else. Access to said artwork now has been lost... Nazi's are alive and well, and running the US media it seems!

njlouch said,
There never was any "obscene content". It was paintings, they were for the purpose of art and not pornography.

Look up vulva or masturbation on Wikipedia and tell me those are just paintings.

Edited by Rigby, May 17 2010, 11:51am :

The 1st is a real picture, the 2nd is a crude painting/drawing from ages ago. I, for one, see no problems with either. The images are only offensive or vulgar if someone has the mindset that they are, and that mentality is taught. It's really sad that sexually repressed [religious] parents/people have to force that same screwed up mentality on others.

iamwhoiam said,
The 1st is a real picture, the 2nd is a crude painting/drawing from ages ago. I, for one, see no problems with either. The images are only offensive or vulgar if someone has the mindset that they are, and that mentality is taught. It's really sad that sexually repressed [religious] parents/people have to force that same screwed up mentality on others.

There are more than two pictures, and real photos are unnecessary. Also do you think the pictures in the article on masturbation are appropriate? Keep in mind they have been changed already, it used to have a video of a guy ejaculating. Going by your "logic" we should show porn movies in sex ed class. There is no need to be that graphic, or for those photos in the articles, no other encyclopedia uses pictures like that. It looks like they came straight out of Hustler magazine.

Also don't pull the religious prude tripe, I'm as atheist as they come and my hard drive is no stranger to porn, but there ARE places where it's not appropriate.

Edited by Rigby, May 17 2010, 2:42pm :

njlouch said,
There never was any "obscene content". It was paintings, they were for the purpose of art and not pornography.

This is a win chalked up to Fox and their ridiculous agenda, ruining the web for everyone else. Access to said artwork now has been lost... Nazi's are alive and well, and running the US media it seems!

People such as yourself, who are obviously ignorant on the matter, only help spread false information with matter of fact comments such as the one above.

There were a lot more obscene images on wikipedia than just two. There were articles such as "gang bang", bukkake, etc. that had images that were undeniably hardcore pornography. I don't have a problem with articles on the human anatomy, because they are obviously meant to be educational; however, I see no reason why young children need to be looking at images of a gang bang, and you would have to be an idiot if you didn't understand why a company like Wikipedia wanted to remove them as quickly as possible.

People is always about censorship and freedom of speech, and what not. Call me conservative, but people are taking the issue of freedom way too seriously and is too readily discarding societal values. While society is restraint more than anything else, it has its value. Is not by accident that we are not living in a world of anarchy.

I really don't claim to have any in-depth knowledge of Wikimedia but let us just say content is accessible to public and via Wikipedia. Forget about legality of it all, just look at need. Do we really need a hardcore doggystyle photo/movie to demonstrate sex? Does a

The thing is. People who upload files that contains obscenity for no reason isn't there to prove freedom, they are using freedom to justify what essentially is trolling. Does a 20min hump session really benefit anyone, considering you could find a million by typing 4 letters and press enter in google.

Like again, call me conservative, Open platform does not mean we just neglect self restraint, things are not free for the sole purpose of being free, there is a purpose. If it does not serve that purpose don't upload it. I'm sure it weren't intended to be your porn folder.

fixxxer2010 said,
jesus do you guys have to debate everything?

+1

Even over the littlest things I find debates, as long as there is a comments section.

Albeit I'm free speech, in this particular case can't really say. Maybe a proof your an adult thing. But seriously.. Fox Gossip Channel is a decade behind or have really dumb people there. So what happens if they find the word C*nt in the dictionary?? it's there. in detail as with any other offensive word. I do find it ironic that they take the so called porn pix off there pages, yet it's okay for 8 yr olds to gyrate like adults on that dumb dance video I've been seeing around. Who is wikipedia protecting??

PatrynXX said,
Albeit I'm free speech, in this particular case can't really say. Maybe a proof your an adult thing. But seriously.. Fox Gossip Channel is a decade behind or have really dumb people there. So what happens if they find the word C*nt in the dictionary?? it's there. in detail as with any other offensive word. I do find it ironic that they take the so called porn pix off there pages, yet it's okay for 8 yr olds to gyrate like adults on that dumb dance video I've been seeing around. Who is wikipedia protecting??

So now it's *shoot the messenger*?

What if it had been CNN? Or MSNBC? Or even (egad) *Reuters* that had reported the same thing? (In fact, Reuters *did* a similar-in-context story regarding certain cartoons that were regarded as anti-Islamic and used as an excuse for fatwas and acts of terror by radicals; was Reuters called onto the carpet?) The real issue is not what Mr. Wales did, or even FNC's bringing the issue to his attention - the issue is how does one set permissibility standards for content on a site that is accessed globally? We haven't solved that one yet (and we may NEVER solve it); however, that does not stop some people from trying to impose their standards upon it. (The imposing authority could be American; it could be Assyrian; it could be an imprateur from darkest Kampuchea for all I know!) Unless the issue gets settled, there will be no end of such attempts at imposition, and no end of bickering about them.

PGHammer said,

So now it's *shoot the messenger*?

What if it had been CNN? Or MSNBC? Or even (egad) *Reuters* that had reported the same thing? (In fact, Reuters *did* a similar-in-context story regarding certain cartoons that were regarded as anti-Islamic and used as an excuse for fatwas and acts of terror by radicals; was Reuters called onto the carpet?) The real issue is not what Mr. Wales did, or even FNC's bringing the issue to his attention - the issue is how does one set permissibility standards for content on a site that is accessed globally? We haven't solved that one yet (and we may NEVER solve it); however, that does not stop some people from trying to impose their standards upon it. (The imposing authority could be American; it could be Assyrian; it could be an imprateur from darkest Kampuchea for all I know!) Unless the issue gets settled, there will be no end of such attempts at imposition, and no end of bickering about them.

Well, you see, CNN/MSNBC/etc. doesn't have Glen Beck, a man of such absurdity that it makes me lose faith in humanity not only to see his face, but to hear people quote him.

Wikipedia/Wikimedia was always a spontaneous order it never had a man in charge (it is actually based on the ideas of F.A.Hayek), it never was and never will be in a state of chaos. A shameful attempt to hurt (or destroy) the MVP (Most Valuable Player) of the Internet (Wikipedia). Porn could be offensive to some people, it even can be illegal but that isn't a reason to start a witch-hunt.

Wikipedia is very important thing on the Internet, it is the source of knowledge and a symbol of freedom, free collaboration, free speech... Only one kind of people are against it, the kind who are against freedom, who are for control and who think if you are not with them then you are against them. In short, crazy and very dangerous people.

aludanyi said,
Only one kind of people are against it, the kind who are against freedom, who are for control and who think if you are not with them then you are against them. In short, crazy and very dangerous people.

Hypocrite.

brianshapiro said,

Hypocrite.

You should learn what a Hypocrite is... I would recommend the Webster's Dictionary...

1. One who feigns to be what he is not; one who has the form of godliness without the power, or who assumes an appearance of piety and virtue, when he is destitute of true religion.

2. A dissembler; one who assumes a false appearance.

Fair hypocrite, you seek to cheat in vain.

aludanyi said,
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was always a spontaneous order it never had a man in charge (it is actually based on the ideas of F.A.Hayek), it never was and never will be in a state of chaos. A shameful attempt to hurt (or destroy) the MVP (Most Valuable Player) of the Internet (Wikipedia). Porn could be offensive to some people, it even can be illegal but that isn't a reason to start a witch-hunt.

Wikipedia is very important thing on the Internet, it is the source of knowledge and a symbol of freedom, free collaboration, free speech... Only one kind of people are against it, the kind who are against freedom, who are for control and who think if you are not with them then you are against them. In short, crazy and very dangerous people.

i find encyclopedia dramatica to be more reliable.

aludanyi said,

You should learn what a Hypocrite is... I would recommend the Webster's Dictionary...

1. One who feigns to be what he is not; one who has the form of godliness without the power, or who assumes an appearance of piety and virtue, when he is destitute of true religion.

2. A dissembler; one who assumes a false appearance.

Fair hypocrite, you seek to cheat in vain.

Ok, granted, if you consider yourself a dangerous person you're not a hypocrite.

But if you don't then you are, because you're taking a tone of moral outrage against people who put things in terms of 'you're with me or against me', but you're taking the exact tone. Everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom. Its self-righteous.

You're criticizing a line Bush has used -- with us or against us -- , but remember Bush also talked about freedom, and people who wanted to destroy freedom -- in his example, the terrorists.

Not everyone who thinks there are some common sense rules about content moderation wants to use coercive force to control the Internet.... And this issue is about whether it makes sense to police pornography on Wikipedia, and whether it made sense for Jimmy Wales to do that. Its not as complicated (or as simple, take your pick) as pro- or anti- freedom.

Edited by brianshapiro, May 17 2010, 2:05am :

treemonster said,

i find encyclopedia dramatica to be more reliable.

Read a few hundred books and you will learn that there as no such thing as a reliable source of information. Everything (even the quality of information) is distributed by the bell curve (Gaussian distribution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

So you can find a little high quality a little low quality and a whole lot between in every book in every encyclopedia in every source of information. Only ignorant people believe uncritically in something, smart people know that the possibility of being right and reliable is limited by many factors. Wikipedia is not less reliable than any other large source of information, it was proved by comparing its content with highly regarded encyclopedias. The only difference is that it is "alive" it changes by the second, there are some information which isn't stable yet but it is better to find unstable information than no information at all. Plus it is freely accessible to everyone. It is nice to have a subscription to some "more reliable" source of information, but the fact is that 99.99% of the World simply are not in a position to have that. Wikipedia is the MVP of the Internet without contest.

brianshapiro said,

Ok, granted, if you consider yourself a dangerous person you're not a hypocrite.

But if you don't then you are, because you're taking a tone of moral outrage against people who put things in terms of 'you're with me or against me', but you're taking the exact tone. Everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom. Its self-righteous.

You're criticizing a line Bush has used -- with us or against us -- , but remember Bush also talked about freedom, and people who wanted to destroy freedom -- in his example, the terrorists.

Not everyone who thinks there are some common sense rules about content moderation wants to use coercive force to control the Internet.... And this issue is about whether it makes sense to police pornography on Wikipedia, and whether it made sense for Jimmy Wales to do that. Its not as complicated (or as simple, take your pick) as pro- or anti- freedom.

First, I am not a dangerous person, I reject violence (except in self defense). Second, I never said that "everyone who disagrees with me is against freedom", I said that people who are against free enterprise, free collaboration and free speech and who are for central control (collectivist) are against freedom. As a man who respect individual freedom I can respect all kind of people without any problem unless they are against my freedom, unless they idea is to force me into live by their rule. Society is a spontaneous order, it has rules too, and any individual (as a part of society) have to live by those rules. But look around, sex and porn are the part of life, there are no rule in society against it. Funny thing though is that most people who are "against" porn are those who are the real freaks like the guy who use a service of a prostitute but act (especially in public) as a perfect guy who love his wife... not to mention the people inside the Church who are caught many times in pedophile practice. Those are the people who you should be after, those are the people who hurt someone, porn can be offensive but it hurts nobody and if you (as a parent) doesn't want your children to see porn (an impossible task) it should be your task to shield them from it, not the task of the institutions of society (government). My idea is to teach your children about human sexuality before porn does it, because they live in a real world as children and they will live in a real world as adults. I don't consider myself a "perverse" person, most of the time I don't watch porn (although I don't try to shield myself from it), and funny thing I was exposed to porn probably before I was 10 years old. The only thing you have to give to children is the "truth", some good information. They are not stupid, they are "little people", if you expect from them to grasp mathematics and science, you can trust them to understand human sexuality as well.

You don't have to use "Bush's line" (it isn't his line it was used countless time before him) to tell me about "being with us or against us" is a bad or good thing. It is a collectivist idea, in the world of individual freedom in the world of spontaneous social life, where people are free to live and choose there as no such thing as "with us or against us", it is a collectivist concept. Free society is not a collectivist concept it has no leader and has no direction, it has no goal. Free society has only one purpose, that is to make possible for free man to work, collaborate and make many kind of exchange with other free people in that society in order to have an opportunity to fulfill his own goals. You have to make a difference between country (a place where a free society exist) and state (an institutions we establish in order to assist the free society).

The president doesn't run the country he is not the leader of the country, he runs the government (institution) and he are the leader of the government. If you understand that difference, I am sure you will understand how beautiful is life in a free society, how empowering is when you have the freedom and the opportunity to work and collaborate with other people and that there is "value" in everything (for someone) even porn. So the Pope as a leader of the Catholic church have every right to ban porn in the Catholic Church (unfortunately I don't see he is very successful in that), but he has no right to ban porn for Catholics (he is NOT the leader of Catholics, he is the lieder of the Catholic Church)... the government also have a right to ban porn in the premises of the government but have no right to ban porn in someones home.

People ere not free to bring porn into your home (if you don't wish) but they should be free to bring porn in their own home.

BTW, Bush was never for freedom, he was just for the something he call freedom (a big difference). Nevertheless I agree with him that people who wants do destroy any kind of freedom are the enemy. Freedom is an idea, it is very hard to imagine that we will be able to achieve full freedom ever, but it is very stupid to think that the freedom we have is enough and it is even more dangerous to abolish some of it just because we think that we are free enough and that security is more important than freedom. There is no security without freedom. The US and the west are the most secure parts of the world exactly because they are the most free parts of the world. Security comes within freedom, not the other way around.

So once again, I am not against anybody I am only against the bad ideas and bad practices. I will try to change your mind if I think you are wrong, I won't try to eliminate you (nor your ideas or practices). That is why I am not a dangerous person. My motto is: "There is not one word you said I agree with, but I will defend your right to say it." ... and I will try (using brain, knowledge, science...) to change tour mind... I hope I was at least a little successful

Edited by aludanyi, May 17 2010, 10:20am :

aludanyi said,

(a hell of a lot)

Completely unrelated, but congratulations! This is the first post I have seen take over a page in length!

smartin0115 said,

Completely unrelated, but congratulations! This is the first post I have seen take over a page in length!

Obviously... you didn't see many of my posts. this one is not even in the play-off

Edited by aludanyi, May 17 2010, 4:49pm :

aludanyi said,

Read a few hundred books and you will learn that there as no such thing as a reliable source of information. Everything (even the quality of information) is distributed by the bell curve (Gaussian distribution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

So you can find a little high quality a little low quality and a whole lot between in every book in every encyclopedia in every source of information. Only ignorant people believe uncritically in something, smart people know that the possibility of being right and reliable is limited by many factors. Wikipedia is not less reliable than any other large source of information, it was proved by comparing its content with highly regarded encyclopedias. The only difference is that it is "alive" it changes by the second, there are some information which isn't stable yet but it is better to find unstable information than no information at all. Plus it is freely accessible to everyone. It is nice to have a subscription to some "more reliable" source of information, but the fact is that 99.99% of the World simply are not in a position to have that. Wikipedia is the MVP of the Internet without contest.


well my comment you quoted was half joke, half paraphrase from ED. and wikipedia is an mmo where players battle out for what gets put into and stays in articles, use various means to fix votes and get their way and level up to admin rank. it's all very quaestionable and the reason why everytime i mention wikipedia as a source of information to real world professionals in a field they say not to take it too seriously and give me their own reference materials.
http://<<; spam >>/Wikipedia
teh fact is wikipedia has a lot supposed information in a most of it's articles with no citations, if they're even marked as citation needed- they stay that way for months and years.
then the articles themselves change frequently enough that looking at the page for my medication last week was radically different from what it looked like a year ago.
wikipedia is a top game on the net, i'll give it that, but it's no where near MVP. there are other organizations and sites with far more influence both online and IRL than wikipedia can ever hope to have, and to the average user it has an air of unreliability.
i'm also under the impression that most schools won't allow wikipedia to be used as a source in research papers.
accredited sources at worse are out of date, where as wikipedia might be the most up to date resource on the net, it is often filled with misinofrmation, lack of citations, edit wars, and personal prejudice to be considered useful on an academic or better level.
for debates between my friends, sure i'll cite the wiki page on the subject, but if i want practical information, i'll take it with a grain of salt and ask my pharmacist fro their printout or other accredited source of info.

my link to ED was marked as spam. lolz. anyways, google encyclopedia dramatica, then search for wikipedia there. it's an eye opener, even if it can't be taken 100% seriously. it gives the reasons ED was founded in the first place.

Edited by treemonster, May 17 2010, 4:59pm :

if it's breaking laws, sure, delete it, but regular porn should NOT be deleted from an OPEN platform. Instead, they should have implemented a "clean" version with the images not included for use by prudish schools and organizations.

primexx said,
if it's breaking laws, sure, delete it, but regular porn should NOT be deleted from an OPEN platform. Instead, they should have implemented a "clean" version with the images not included for use by prudish schools and organizations.

What is pornography?

Porn is like *obscene material*; any context is subjective (not objective). (Some of Rembrandt's paintings could be considered pornography; some of those same paintings *have* been labeled obscene! And in none of them was any figure even partially unclothed.)

And it's because of the subjectivity of pornography and obscenity that both have defied global categorization.

Well... certain articles are related to what fox news might call "porn". "Purging" porn is censorship. Instead why not introduce some kind of mature content warning on certain images and articles.

nub said,
Well... certain articles are related to what fox news might call "porn". "Purging" porn is censorship. Instead why not introduce some kind of mature content warning on certain images and articles.

Another of those. Why so obsessed about porn on Wikimedia? Hey, you do know if you Google porn, you get all you want. Why the sudden need of mature contents? I'm sure Wikipedia already have articles that specifies what is anal or oral sex, what is a teabagging, what is wanking in explicit details. Actually I searched for them before to see if they really exist. And there is pictures of penis.

The key is to be informative. Porn is not informative, it is entertainment. I would purge Lion King off it as well if it does not serve a purpose.

"Sanger defended his actions by saying that he saw the images himself, and that he knew that according to the law, he would be indicted as co-founder if charges were filed. "

You can't blame the dude one bit if he was worried as a founder for being held liable.

Wikipedia should also purge all other offensive material as well. Such as pages that have content which might harm the Church of Scientology.

Udedenkz said,
Wikipedia should also purge all other offensive material as well. Such as pages that have content which might harm the Church of Scientology.

+9001 /s

Udedenkz said,
Wikipedia should also purge all other offensive material as well. Such as pages that have content which might harm the Church of Scientology.
This is not about Wikipedia. It's about Wikimedia, which hosts the pictures! Wikimedia's service was used to host porn pictures. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia.

matrix64 said,
This is not about Wikipedia. It's about Wikimedia, which hosts the pictures! Wikimedia's service was used to host porn pictures. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia.

then curse himself to named both services with a similar name.

Magallanes said,

then curse himself to named both services with a similar name.

WikiMedia *hosts* WikiPedia as one of its sites (however, it is not the only site hosted by WikiMedia). Because of the content of one site, *all* of WikiMedia (not merely the offending site) was at risk.

anyone else notice this?

unknown-administrator said,
By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other.

Ignoring their beliefs? So, he's saying that he believes they should keep the porn they could get in trouble for. Good for you, buddy. I personally think that avoiding legal action or taking fire for objectionable material is the better path, but to each their own.

Porn is just porn, but where and when does it cross the line? You leave it there, you're irresponsible. You take it down, you're censoring the Internet. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

bjoswald said,
Porn is just porn, but where and when does it cross the line? You leave it there, you're irresponsible. You take it down, you're censoring the Internet. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

+1

I can't really take a side since I don't have a full picture of what actually happened.

I agree that the rushed actions are going a bit against the freedom of information on Wikipedia, but I never saw the pictures so I don't know if this was really justified (I would guess so). But I would be a bit dissapointed that because of such an accident to see Wikipedia blocked by some employers or institutions.

Calling Wikipedia in a state of chaos is only to instill FUD into the public. Having Wikipedia/Wikimedia completely maintained by the community and not having a top level administrator doesn't mean there is chaos; it means that it is up to the community to ensure that content is appropriate and acceptable, like it has always been. They can't expect Wales to moderate every single change, so now that he's given up the title, what has REALLY changed? Nothing. He's removed the burden/responsibility/liability of having to moderate all content (which would never happen), but that is all. The community will continue to maintain Wikipedia like has always been the case. End of story. Another gem from Fox News.

He is still president of the Wikimedia Foundation. he just gave him his rights as head administrator of content. he has the rights of a regular old admin now.

I'm glad he did what he did (as in purging all the pornographic materials). Regardless of my opinion that pornography is evil, disgusting, and disrespectful to mankind; having such contents hosted on Wikipedia is really inappropriate. It is obvious that he wasn't aware of this (I wonder how), otherwise he wouldn't start purging. Or maybe he felt embarrassed? However, he did the right thing.

I wonder if he really stepped down, or it is just a rumor. If it is true, I hope he comes back.

Mind Bender said,
pornography is evil, disgusting, and disrespectful to mankind

wtf dude? its just humans doing what humans do on camera

M4x1mus said,

wtf dude? its just humans doing what humans do on camera

Oh yeah? Then it's absolutely OK for everyone to know watch your private life on tape?

I know that an enormous number of people will disagree with me, but I don't really care.

Mind Bender said,

Oh yeah? Then it's absolutely OK for everyone to know watch your private life on tape?

I know that an enormous number of people will disagree with me, but I don't really care.

It's one thing for people to doing it for the explicit intention of letting others see, and another for someone who watches it to necessarily agree to having their own, "Private life" on tape.

Of course, I also think that if it's illegal and underage, the who the cares if it's, "Private", get rid of it!

Kyang said,

It's one thing for people to doing it for the explicit intention of letting others see, and another for someone who watches it to necessarily agree to having their own, "Private life" on tape.

Of course, I also think that if it's illegal and underage, the who the cares if it's, "Private", get rid of it!

Well, true. It's one thing if people wish others to see them naked and doing these things, but it doesn't mean it is right to do so. It's their right if they wish to be exposed to the world, but it's not a "good" thing. This is what I think.

Mind Bender said,

Well, true. It's one thing if people wish others to see them naked and doing these things, but it doesn't mean it is right to do so. It's their right if they wish to be exposed to the world, but it's not a "good" thing. This is what I think.


What do you mean when you say it is right? Do you mean morally or ethically right? Based on what? Who are you to say what is right and wrong for other people? Why shouldn't people be allowed to create pornography showing sexual acts between consenting adults? Nobody has to watch it if they don't want to.

rheostat said,

What do you mean when you say it is right? Do you mean morally or ethically right? Based on what? Who are you to say what is right and wrong for other people? Why shouldn't people be allowed to create pornography showing sexual acts between consenting adults? Nobody has to watch it if they don't want to.

This is not the discussion here, and this is irrelevant to the new post.
I am who I am, and I am expressing my opinion. I think it's wrong; morally and ethically. It's what I think, and whether or not you agree, it's irrelevant.

And you are right when you say that nobody has to watch it if they don't want to. Nobody forces anybody to watch anything. Now let's stop talking about this in here. Period.

Mind Bender said,

Well, true. It's one thing if people wish others to see them naked and doing these things, but it doesn't mean it is right to do so. It's their right if they wish to be exposed to the world, but it's not a "good" thing. This is what I think.

Okay, fair enough if you think its "not a good thing" but can you actually tell me why you think that? If everyone being filmed is happy to be filmed then what is the problem?

Edited by M4x1mus, May 16 2010, 10:08pm :

M4x1mus said,
Okay, fair enough if you think its "not a good thing" but can you actually tell me why you think that? If everyone being filmed is happy to be filmed then what is the problem?

He can't tell you why. He's repeating the typical mantra of any close minded individual, which is basically to say "I believe what I believe" without supporting their stance then pressing to drop/change the subject.

geoken said,

He can't tell you why. He's repeating the typical mantra of any close minded individual, which is basically to say "I believe what I believe" without supporting their stance then pressing to drop/change the subject.


Exactly. He reiterated his stance, which was baseless and unsupported, and then called for an end to the discussion. I'm going to assume that he was raised to believe in a particular set of values, and has not bothered to find supporting arguments for his views or consider alternative perspectives.

Edited by rheostat, May 16 2010, 11:37pm : Alacrity

Kyang said,

It's one thing for people to doing it for the explicit intention of letting others see, and another for someone who watches it to necessarily agree to having their own, "Private life" on tape.

Of course, I also think that if it's illegal and underage, the who the cares if it's, "Private", get rid of it!

The problem with anti-obscenity laws in a global context is simple, yet complex - what nation's laws define? The laws of the site host? The laws of the headquarters of the sitemaster? The laws of the nation of the Webmaster/Webmistress? And what do you do with multiple jurisdictions, each with differing standards? (You can't turn it over to the UN, as there is NO *global standard* for obscenity, pornography, or even criminal conduct.)

Mr. Wales was basically put between a rock and a hard place by Fox News (acting as reporter for the Court of Public Opinion). Whether Fox News was right or wrong is irrelevant - had any other news organization reported the same, the wicket would have been just as sticky.

Doing nothing was NOT an option.

Mind Bender said,

This is not the discussion here, and this is irrelevant to the new post.
I am who I am, and I am expressing my opinion. I think it's wrong; morally and ethically. It's what I think, and whether or not you agree, it's irrelevant.

And you are right when you say that nobody has to watch it if they don't want to. Nobody forces anybody to watch anything. Now let's stop talking about this in here. Period.

Your mind is bended by religion, right?
Just come out and say it, then we know not to attempt to engage in a reasoned argument with you.

Mind Bender said,

Oh yeah? Then it's absolutely OK for everyone to know watch your private life on tape?

I know that an enormous number of people will disagree with me, but I don't really care.

i like watching lesbian porn.

fixxxer2010 said,
i like watching lesbian porn.

What is morally right and ethical is one thing.

But having pornographic material on Wikimedia, a medium that you don't expect porn to be in, I don't think so. People arguing that the content should be there (I'm not talking about those who don't mind porno, I dont mind either) because of freedom of content and anti-censorship is just neglecting social responsibility. Porn have its place, you don't expect porn to be on your biochemistry textbook, or newspaper, you don't expect it to be on Wikipedia. Just as you don't expect messages about values of family in a porn movie or magazine.

RPDL said,
What? How come none of this is on wikipedia? I call bull****.
This article is about Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. The two are linked i.e. Wikimedia hosts the majority of image and audio data that Wikipedia uses, but it isn't limited to Wikipedia.
Homepage: http://wikimedia.org/

shhac said,
This article is about Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. The two are linked i.e. Wikimedia hosts the majority of image and audio data that Wikipedia uses, but it isn't limited to Wikipedia.
Homepage: http://wikimedia.org/

I believe it was sarcasm; as in why is this drama not being chronicled in Wikipedia articles like the rest of the worlds drama.


The insinuation being censorship etc.

To be honest, I'm glad he took such rapid action. While, fundamentally speaking, I don't like censorship of even the wost things humanity can offer, at the same time I recognize that our society doesn't work on such absolute acceptance of all information.

I also understand that a project needs a leader, such as Jimmy Wales, that is able to set design goals and aspirations, or it will fall into so-called "design by committee" where everyone has a personal attachment to the project and wants their interests to be accounted for.

I agree but censorship can be a good thing when you're using sites like this at work. When inappropriate material is found on a site the firewall/IA folks block it and it's next to impossible to get it unblocked.