Wikimedia adult content, the handling of adult content suffers from similar problems. Hundreds of masturbation videos and penis images in Wikimedia Commons testify to a well-developed and unchecked culture of anonymous sexual exhibitionism.

Internet sites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, including the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, have become increasingly important. The Wikimedia Foundation has become a highly visible organisation with a $80 million annual income from donations. But however successful in many respects, the Wikimedia principle of “crowdsourcing” by anonymous contributors creates significant and ongoing problems in several areas, eg. handling of adult content.

The handling of adult content suffers from similar problems. Hundreds of masturbation videos and penis images in Wikimedia Commons testify to a well-developed and unchecked culture of anonymous sexual exhibitionism. The most accessed pages are almost all sexual images. Sexual material hosted in Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons includes –
• photographs of sexual acts including ejaculation, ordinary penetration, masturbation with vegetables, toothbrushes and children’s toys, and the drinking of urine,
• old, out-of-copyright pornographic films featuring penetration, fellatio and ejaculation, • pornographic drawings with motifs ranging from bestiality to incestuous child abuse. This material is available unfiltered, to minors and adults alike. Personality rights and privacy are treated in a cavalier way. The word of an anonymous uploader is taken as sufficient assurance that the person depicted – possibly in the process of engaging in a sexual act in a non-public place – is aware of and has consented to the upload.

The absence of any kind of content rating or search filter, such as the one used in Google, means that sexual images may be and are included in search results for innocent search terms that no user would expect to return sexual media. For example, searching for a particular children’s toy in Wikimedia Commons returns as its first search result an image where the toy in question is used by an adult for sexual gratification.


NB: Published by arrangement with Wikipedia Sucks, from their archives, authors unknown, under the terms of their following notice.


LEGAL NOTICE : Content on this page potentially infringing inter-alia upon Wikipedia Sucks (TM) title was previously uploaded by some anonymous persons on Wikipedia Sucks, a Proboards.com forum but was deleted for an unrelated abuse violation of Proboards' Terms of Use. Pursuant to the forum deletion, its deleted content has been retrieved with the specific written assistance / advice / permission of abuse@proboards.com ("the content licencee") and is archived as a social utility and for legal reasons as record and to assist erstwhile members of that forum. Because these archived materials may conceivably be defamatory the readers are given notice and strongly warned against treating it as the truth. {see para 74+ "LOUTCHANSKY - and - THE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS") . Further reproduction of this archived content is disallowed without permission of the content licencee. All non-abuse requests for redaction of content must be made through, and authenticated by, the content licencee, or accompanied by order of a competent court.

Thanks to anonymous internet researchers on a bulletin board, here's a link to the WikMedia Foundation WMF wiki's current publicly available policy document that deals with child pornography on WMF sites. Alexander pointed out in a further comment to the Facebook group that the detailed process the WMF uses is not publicly available.

Post by Flip Flopped on Apr 2, 2016 at 11:48pm

On March 23rd Jan Ainali posted a comment to the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group regarding WMF staff's self-reported level of success/lack of success dealing with images of child pornography on WMF sites. The measure of success/lack of success is part of the October to December 2015 quarterly report posted on Meta.

In a Wikipedia Weekly Facebook comment James Alexander responded to Ainali's post with a critique of the WMF's current policy regarding child pornography. Alexander, who appears to state he is responsible for the quarterly report's metric in this area, also outlined internal WMF obstacles for improving their process of dealing with child pornography.

Here's a link to the WMF Foundation wiki's current publicly available policy document that deals with child pornography on WMF sites. Alexander pointed out in a further comment to the Facebook group that the detailed process the WMF uses is not publicly available.

It appears that Alexander critiques the current internal WMF policy for dealing with child pornography images as being slow: "The current policy is long, process heavy and complicated and we wanted to rewrite it to make it easier to understand and train new staff."

This reinforces my belief that the WMF's ostensible hiring of a child safety officer (Kalliope) was ineffective and for show.


Post by HRA1924 on Apr 10, 2016 at 2:34am

Apr 10, 2016 at 2:22am HRA1924 said:
I wonder what happened to this thread on MetaWiki
Got it.
Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement
Found it from here
Wikilegal
"Although the government may choose not to prosecute § 2257 violations against individual users, its scope remains theoretically broad."


Accordingly, We, the responsible wikipedia critics, must therefore remain vigilant to collectively review and criticise the above-linked WMF policies and WMF's lax approach to controlling child pornography on their "educational" projects.

A word to our critics:
Lord Denning M.R. views on fair dealing, fair comment review and criticism

It is impossible to define what is „fair dealing‟. It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be fair dealing. ... As with fair comment in the law of libel, so with fair dealing in the law of copyright.

A note about Fabrice Florin and NewsTrust.


NB: Published by arrangement with Wikipedia Sucks, from their archives, authors unknown, under the terms of their following notice..


LEGAL NOTICE : Content on this page potentially infringing inter-alia upon Wikipedia Sucks (TM) title was previously uploaded by some anonymous persons on Wikipedia Sucks, a Proboards.com forum but was deleted for an unrelated abuse violation of Proboards' Terms of Use. Pursuant to the forum deletion, its deleted content has been retrieved with the specific written assistance / advice / permission of abuse@proboards.com ("the content licencee") and is archived as a social utility and for legal reasons as record and to assist erstwhile members of that forum. Because these archived materials may conceivably be defamatory the readers are given notice and strongly warned against treating it as the truth. {see para 74+ "LOUTCHANSKY - and - THE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS") . Further reproduction of this archived content is disallowed without permission of the content licencee. All non-abuse requests for redaction of content must be made through, and authenticated by, the content licencee, or accompanied by order of a competent court.

Florin's long professional friendship with two well-known Internet evangelists, Howard Rheingold (also a neighbor of his in Mill Valley), and former journalist turned industry insider Dan Gillmor. All three of these "old hippies" have written screeds venerating Wikipedia and Jimbo as if they were the Second Coming.

Florin used to be the WMF "Product Manager for New Editor Engagement", started working for them in 2012. And left the WMF completely in June 2015. I suspect he was another side-effect of Lila's attempt to remove the office "deadweight" that did little or nothing. Since Florin has been keeping a VERY low profile since then, I presume he does not wish to discuss it.

One thing that I just ran across: the website he started in 2005-06, newstrust.net, was popular with working journalists for some years. Now quoting from the book-wiki article:

Even stranger: Florin's "great creation" Newstrust.net completely disappeared from the Web, with no warning and no discussion, shortly after he resigned from the WMF. The final archive.org capture was on 29 June 2015. As of 2016 the URL is blank, without even an error message. Florin had turned it over to the Poynter journalism organization when he resigned in 2012, and they evidently did very little with it. But the custom-written Wikipedia article about Newstrust remains, and says nothing about its demise. The principal author of this article, in March 2010, was a little-noticed anonymous editor called Apostle12. Likely to be a sockpuppet of Florin or one of his old hippie friends. Apostle12 was quite fond of editing the "Hippie" article, and fighting with other Wikipedians over its content; as well as editing subjects only an aging Marinite ex-hippie would find important, such as 1960s political scandals. He quit editing in 2013 but his talkpage is full of examples -- including two arbitrations Apostle12 was named in as a "combatant"; the September 11 conspiracy-theories request of 2008 and the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" squabble of 2011.

Also deserving of a mention: Florin's long professional friendship with two well-known Internet evangelists, Howard Rheingold (also a neighbor of his in Mill Valley), and former journalist turned industry insider Dan Gillmor. All three of these "old hippies" have written screeds venerating Wikipedia and Jimbo as if they were the Second Coming. Google it if you don't believe me. (Good luck; like most Wikipedians, these guys have gone around and destroyed webpages they wrote or were quoted on. which later turned out to be "embarrassing".)

www.b2bmemes.com/2011/11/13/wikipedia-is-no-authority-by-design/

"Wikipedia is a miracle"

wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presenters/Dan_Gillmor