We were working on Wikipedia and received a series of strange messages on our talk page from User:Adam Bishop. Then, when I (Jack) tried to edit, the message below showed up:
Would somebody please explain what is happening as the reason for the block makes no sense. Thank you.
User:JillandJackUser is blocked
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Angela.
The reason given is this:
reincarnation of banned user DW/BlackWidow/Angelique etc
You can email Angela or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-L mailing list (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l). Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.
Your IP address is 24.139.28.56. Please include this address in any queries you make.
If you would like to know when the block will expire, please see the block list.
If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature.
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
The article in question is a description of a bit of sexual jargon or
folklore; the kind of stuff you get on Howard Stern. As it seems to me
that it falls within the remit of the deletion policy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n…)
I listed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there
is a 2:1 majority vote for keep.
In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to
describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to
younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure
because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia
is, a classroom-safe reference work is clearly not number one on the list.
This doesn't render Wikipedia content forever inaccessible to classrooms,
however. This and other articles of its type are in the category "Sex
moves". These could be filtered out easily during production of a
classroom-safe copy of Wikipedia.
Oh dear!
The new sketch is now on that autofellatio page - but not as a link,
even though the community vote favoured a link.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are
the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an
trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Two thoughts:
1) The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something
doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio
or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about
something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or
educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media
interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search
engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
have wanted one).
=Summary=
I have been using wikipedia for some time (though I only recently
started actively editing) and am concerned that the mission to provide
a repository of generally accessible information is being changed so
that it won't be generally acceptable (and thus not accessible
either). The great thing about a web based encyclopedia is that with
one click can provide additional information about a subject (or see a
picture of it, etc) for those that want it. These arguments about
using your browser correctly, accusations of censorship, etc miss the
point and the mission of wikipedia.
Like James, I have been recommeding wikipedia to many (though in my
case it is adults aged 30-70 with most in the 50-70 range*). If we
can't come to a concensus that includes a 1) generally acceptable
standard with 2) links to the additional (possibly offensive
material), I won't be able to keep making that recommendation.
==QUESTION==
Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material
offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a
link" not considered a reasonable?
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trödel]]
*These are generally intelligent people who usually already have a
computer but they have heard of spyware, viruses, porn, etc. and are
not sure they want to make the transition to "always on" access to the
internet. "Won't people be able to snoop into my computer?" is a
typical question. Currently, I setup firefox, install spyware
protection software, install a web-meeting software so if they have a
problem they can call me and I can help, and setup bookmarks based on
their interest, which currently always include wikipedia.
> "Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
> I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community
> it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
> won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
> recommending it to most of the people I currently
> recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
> children, given my work in a high school). You can
> call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
> names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
> let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
>
> I agree with these sentiments, James.
>
I'm writing this mail to make public my project, which is studying
Wikipedia as a learning community. This is for an M.Ed. I am
undertaking in the UK. I've already had some contact with a limited
few people who have filled out a questionnaire, some of whom are on
this mailing list, but I am now mainly looking at interpersonal
dynamics and sociological aspects of the project at large which will
serve as research for my dissertation, which I hope to eventually make
available to Wikipedia.
I'm already aware of a number of people who are either engaged or
interested in studying similar aspects, for example a recent post to
the wikiEN mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019136.html
I will be pursuing a similar methodology in the sense that it will be
low-key 'monitoring' of various exchanges/discussions within the
Wikimedia network. But how my approach differs is that I would also
like to include Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one, as part of
my inquiry. This means that I'd like to (with permission) use
discussions that arise here as part of my research. The key issue here
is permission/consent - I wouldn't assume consent unless someone
explicitly gave me theirs. This then raises the issue of whether I
would have to write individually to each person whose opinion/mail I
would like to use, or whether I could use these opinions and assure
confidentiality as a basic given to all. That is my main question to
the list - whether this latter approach or the former seem reasonable,
or what you would suggest I do instead? I'm also interested in
comparing languages, which is why I'm posting this message to the
foundation list among others. In addition to this I'll be contacting
particular individuals for their individual experiences and of course
consent, but details of that are outside the purpose of this list.
I expect that there will be several comments and possibly some
objections arising from this message. If you would prefer to contact
me directly with any questions as opposed to posting to the list, that
is fine. But this email is not a request to participate, rather an
announcement of my project and a query as to the feasability and
ethics of reproducing material from this list.
Further details can be found at my en:WP user page [[User:Cormaggio]],
which also has details of my previous small scale pilot study. I have
also set up a page in Meta, which I hope will serve as a discussion
for those interested, at this address:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research/Wikipedia_as_a_learning_community
There are a number of questions there to which I would be interested
in hearing the answers from as wide a range of people as possible.
However, I am not putting out these questions as a questionnaire per
se, rather a prompt for further research.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Cormac Lawler
cormaggio(a)gmail.com, cormaggio(a)yahoo.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Knight" <nknight(a)runawaynet.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] autofellatio image : back to square 2
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:43:58 -0800
>
> Arno M wrote:
> > Oh dear!
> >
> > The new sketch is now on that autofellatio page - but not as a
> > link, even though the community vote favoured a link.
>
> Was there ever a vote on linking anything other than the original image?
I think the vote covers this new image, which was linked for a while.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Someone wrote:
<something about censorship>
Every newspaper/encyclopedia/media has some kind of editorial policy.
This is not the same thing as "censorship." A newspaper puts all the
sports stories in one section, all the local news in another, and
keeps the classified ads separately from the news and editorials.
Censorship means trying to disallow expression of certain views in all
media, but we are not trying to remove the picture from everywhere on
the internet. You are free to post that picture on your web site if
you want. We won't campaign to get it deleted from your web site.
Having an editorial policy on graphic pictures is not "censorship."
That has to be the most absurd claim posted yet. Should we have no
editorial policy and no limits? Should we allow trolls to upload child
porn as an excuse to "illustrates" the child porn article? How about
allowing trolls to upload bestiality, anal sex, coprophilia,
urolagnia, necrophilia, and rape porn to illustrate those articles?
That's clearly absurd. There should be clear editorial policy on
graphic pictures. If not, and if every troll is allowed to upload all
kinds of graphic pictures as an excuse to "illustrate" articles,
Wikipedia would get blocked by all child protection software, some
ISPs, and all countries where porn is illegal. That's clearly harmful
to Wikipedia, and it opens the door to trolls to disrupt Wikipedia by
uploading even more extreme and graphic porn, and then cry
"censorship" when it is removed.
OneGuy
(Sorry, couldn't resist responding when I read some preposterous claim
about "censorship" on the archive).
Tony Sidaway said:
"Sean Barrett said:
>> Was the spaniel equipped with a large dildo?
>
> No, I must confess that I missed that detail in my cursory glance at
> the [[Lolicon]] image.
Arguably it isn't just the dildo, it's the composition. It's a child
posed erotically. The look on the child's face is one of submission. The
viewpoint is that of the abuser. I'm familiar with the suncream ad and
none of those elements is present."
I missed that thing, too. It could perhaps come out, in favour of
a milder example of this, um, phenonomen.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
> From: Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)last-straw.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <0b8dfe7f2fc3ef7aa72e882894ea26b8(a)last-straw.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial
> control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word
> censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
>
> Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to
> Jimbo...
> What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an
> article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
>
> At the end of the day this is about censoring images for the sake of
> the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of an individual,
> organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
>
Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in our
out. Censoring would be to delete all mention of a specific item
including systematically deleting any reference or access to the
subject matter. Censorship is not continuing to provide easy access to
information or images while not forcing it on everyone. Read Farenheit
451 for (albiet extreme) real censorship - or other efforts in the
past to systemically burn books to remove them from the library and
prevent all access. Limiting access is often called censorship but is
not.
As I have recently commented on the image in questions talk page - the
intransigence of some to the completely reasonable proposal to
exercise some discretion by making it a link just makes me want to the
take the battle up a notch and just get rid of the picture from
wikipedia - make it an external link (still not censorship - just what
I would consider better discretion).
Jim