Jimmy Wales' Quest to Profit from Wikipedia While Running Away from It

Let me say right at the beginning that it is our editorial mandate to not give a flying fuck about Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, outside of making him the butt of jokes, because he really isn't important to the day-to-day affairs at Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. More and more, they only ask for his input when something truly major comes along......certainly Wales has his talkpage (which has spawned a number of  its own fiascoes), but other than that he is a free man. And that's the problem.

Wales' Political Philiosophy

The ultimate irony of "free culture" Wikipedia is that the guy who claims to be the founder is an ardent supporter of capitalism and a college fan of Ayn Rand. According to his ex wife: “To him, altruism was evil," remembers Pam, who says that Wales therefore discouraged her from pursuing a nursing degree when they were married. “His whole ‘Mr. Save the World’ is so contrary to what he said every day for seven years.” Jimmy Donal Wales is a Libertarian* or crypto-Objectivist, though he has spent his Wikipedia years not talking about things like the "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy" he ran in the early 1990s. Larry Sanger had this to say about Wales' Objectivist leanings: "I wanted to say quickly here--I have long since lost patience to talk much about Rand's philosophy, since it is so sloppy and self-indulgent--that, in my experience, Wales was extremely well versed in Rand arcana. It's not correct to suppose that he was just a dabbler. He seriously studied the stuff back in the 90s. When I wrote a long "Objections to Objectivism" essay in about 1995 (putting flabby-minded Objectivist doctrines under an analytical philosophy microscope), Wales wrote one of the longest, meatiest replies. If you looked hard enough for them, you might be able to find both my original post and his reply. Possibly on the h.p.o. newsgroup."  All that explains why he worked as a trader at Chicago Options Associates in the early 1990s, but following the grand tradition of Libertarians/Objectivists being bad managers, he was not as good a trader as he claims he was, and he was continually out to lunch while running Bomis**, things we will have to recount at another time. The major point is that Wales has always loved profit-oriented businesses, even though his rise to fame came from Wikipedia, a collaborative non-profit.

Escape Number One: Wikia

Wikia, Inc. (originally "Wikicities") was begun in late 2004 as another project of Bomis, like Search Bastard and 3Apes, and it used programmers from the failed 3Apes site. The founders were Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley, with assistance from Tim Davis, Brad Patrick, and Michael Shell. All of them together were the board of directors of Wikia, which was set up as a Florida corporation. Despite using the "Copyleft" free content license to deal with copyright issues, Wikia succumbed to advertising in 2007. Wales had stepped down from being CEO a year earlier, which was the year Bessemer Venture Partners began cash infusions. Wikia had been set up with private money, probably from the board members, we don't know. And that's a problem we will run across all throughout this article - Wales hides his finances and financial relations. For a guy who wants "free culture", his corporate life is not up for even the most cursory examination. Allegedly "Wookiepedia" (the Star Wars Wikia) and "Memory Alpha" (the Star Trek Wikia) are the larger keystone websites within Wikia; it has been said if the advertising revenue were to dry up, Wikia would be defunct within less than a year. The other big problem is that Wales et. al. might be breaking the law, because of the non-profit (Wikipedia)/profit-driven (Wikia) overlap. In 2011-2012 there were over 11,000 external links to Wikipedia from Wikia sites, Wales has promoted Wikia at Wikimania conferences, Angela Beesley regularly edited the Wikipedia article about Wikia as Wikipedia user Angela, Wikia agreed in 2009 to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation,  Wikia was hosting a secret mailing list comprised exclusively of hand-picked Wikipedia administrators and certain representatives of the Foundation (including Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales), and on and on. The legal issues with Wikia and Wikipedia's nerdy racketeering are richly deserving a future article at this blog, and we will talk about them, rest assured. I have been told that Greg Kohs formally reported the Wikia-Wikipedia double-dealing to the IRS in 2007 or 2008, because the Wikimedia Foundation was allegedly sixty percent composed of Wikia employees. The IRS did nothing.

Escape Number One-Point-Five: Wikia Search

An extremely short-lived Wikia spinoff that began in December 2006, after Jimbo speculated out loud about a Wikia-based Internet search engine and the press heard. Even though Wikia already was working on such a project, which meant it had to be re-named "Wikia Search." On December 29th Wales makes the press statement that funding received from Amazon.com is not specific to the search project and also reiterates that Wikia and Wikipedia had separate management, even though they shared three key stakeholders. And this is six days after he stumbled his way into "starting" Wikia Search! The year 2007 saw Wales claiming that Wikia Search would trump Google and Yahoo ("The idea that Google has some edge because they've got super-duper rocket scientists may be a little antiquated now." - Jimmy Wales) and that idiotic Fast Company article about Wales and Wikia Search. The next year saw the launch of Wikia Search on January 7th (the day prior was the infamous incident where Wales told journalist Seth Finklestein "Seth, you're an idiot", when Finklestein questioned the viability of Wikia Search.) January 8th, 2008 saw the press take on the new website: Critics Wallop Wikia. Wales counters with this: "I don't know how long it will take to reach industry-standard quality search results, but I'd say at least two years." In May 2008, Seth Finklestein writes about the real reason for Wikia: monetizing (quoth Wales: "The monetizing is pretty straightforward....[w]e don't have any clever, innovative ideas around that.") October, 2008: Wikia has large layoffs. March 2009 has Wales saying this to journalist Susan Kuchinskas: "I have my team focused on the front end, working on the user experience, and making sure we have all the wiki-like tools people need to work on the site. We're just cranking away." Five days later on March 31st, 2009, Wikia Search is put out of its misery. Three years from initial "idea" to a defunct business; not a record, but certainly amazing.

                                              They will NEVER live this cover down.


Escape Number Two: Self-promotion

This is the one everybody knows if they know about Wales; he does public speaking around the world and wristwatch ads. The only problem is, if you do an internet search for "Jimmy Wales celebrity speaking" this site turns up, as does this one. And this one for the UK, which must be cheaper because Wales lives in London now. To beat that there are two with German web country codes ("a" and "b"), though "b" is no longer offering him. That's five different speakers bureaus in three separate countries, and the first organization (the Harry Walker Agency) claims Wales is an "exclusive speaker" - exclusive for the United States, or the town the Agency is in?

The other thing outsiders know him for is that Maurice Lacroix print ad in 2010, which was part of a campaign featuring famous performer/dreamer types including Sir Bob Geldof (lead singer of the Boomtown Rats,Live Aid concert host, star of Roger Waters' depressing 1982 adaption of Pink Floyd's The Wall, father to dead heroin enthusiast Peaches), and Justin Rose (English professional golfer.) If you look up Maurice Lacroix on Wikipedia, you will see a nice looking, though slightly lumpy-reading article (possibly because it's been edited by nameless IP users from Hong Kong and that PR machine Vegaswikian) which seemed to expand after Jimbo's appearance in magazines standing next to a watch floating in empty white space.

                                                               Some puffery found on YouTube.


Escape Number Three: Telenor

This one is more like classic double-dealing rather than a job; the Norwegian telecom company Telenor was doing paid editing and Jimmy went to Bangladesh to talk at conference run by a Telenor subsidiary, Grameenphone. A lot of this detective work was done by anti-fans of this site Greg Kohs and Andreas Kolbe. According to their work, a major paid editor was Erlend Bjørtvedt, a vice-president of Telenor, working under the Wikipedia handle Bjoertvedt who is also a vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway (!), and nothing was done about that. The Wikipedia page on Telenor was edited by an account creatively titled Telenor Info, along with Bjoertvedt and a large number of IP-only accounts. Other paid editors were Esbentuman (Esben Tuman, former Telenor employee) and Sune00 (Sune Engsig.) Uninor (a Telenor joint-venture in India) was watched by Uninor (single purpose account) and created by Bjoertvedt. Telenor Pakistan was watched by Telenor Info, Syed Soulat Abbas Zaidi (Soulatzaidi, manager of Telenor Pakistan), and Danish crazy (SPA.) And all of that is the tip of the iceberg.....meanwhile this February, Wales showed up in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka: "....He is coming on a one-day visit to celebrate 10 years of Wikipedia Bangladesh. Jimmy will attend two seminars to be arranged by Wikipedia Bangladesh and leading mobile phone operator Grameenphone. The Grameenphone seminar is on ‘Internet for all: Access to knowledge for all’ which will be held in a city hotel." 

Escape Number Four: Quora

This is another lesser moneymaker. Wales' profile page claims he is "an advisor and (very small) investor in Quora." This Quora Answer points out how Wales met Quora executive Marc Bodnick: "Wales soon met with Bodnick at Wikimedia's St Petersburg, Florida, headquarters, and later chatted with Roger McNamee in San Francisco. Then, several weeks later, Wales and his wife Christine had dinner with Bodnick and his personal assistant at a steakhouse in nearby Tampa." That was written by Todd Rush Chambers, one of Wales' high school friends. A source claims that Wales has Indians (paid or unpaid is unknown) upvoting what he writes on Quora, but I have no confirmation.

Escape Number Five: the Lessig Presidential campaign, the Gateway to a Political Future?

Right now Jimbo is part of Lawrence "Larry" Lessig's probably-doomed Democratic presidential campaign as some sort of adviser - they even showed up at the Satanic pit they call Reddit to do an AMA trying to talk up the campaign. My theory is that this is where Jimmy Wales turns into the "Internet generation" Frank Luntz; my source doubts that Jimmy can pull it because Wikipedia isn't cool enough on the Hill anymore. I disagree; Jimmy seems to have impeccably awful timing. At the very worst he might wind up managing a Subway sandwich franchise as a sixty-year-old.

Finale

Unless things change radically, this is the last time we will write about Jimmy Wales outside of Wikipedia.....I have been told that Wales has ticked off Silicon Valley, the venture capital crowd, numerous others, so that the chances of Jimbo fleeing Nonprofitland and trying to become idiotically wealthy are probably behind him. So the wannabe Randian superhero capitalist is now a vague humanitarian. Truly fitting.


_______________________________________
* For our Russian, Ukrainian, Scandinavian, or French readers, we are not talking about what is also called Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc. "Libertarian" and "Libertarianism" in this context denote a political/economic philosophy supporting market forces over government intervention, extreme individualism, and a barely-submerged anti-Communism/anti-Socialism. Objectivism is an even more extreme form of Libertarianism created by novelist Ayn Rand (Alisa Z. Rosenbaum, a Leningrader who immigrated to America to get away from Communism.) Rand despised all forms of collectivism (including corporations who sold things to governments), also believed that she was the great arbiter of artistic taste. The blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature nailed all of her logical fallacies for years, and is still ripping the shenanigans of ARI, the "institute" that promotes Objectivism.

** "Of the years I worked at Bomis, most employees he treated with an almost non-existent aloofness. He talked to anyone very rarely. No one really knew what their job responsibilities were. No one knew how things were going until they got laid off. Some, such as me, or Tim Shell, he treated with mocking disdain."

"Jimmy was such a non-existent manager of all the employees. No meetings, no discussions on how the company was doing, no nothing from him. Tim Shell was the second in charge, and he barely spoke to anyone ever as it was. Often times I talked with the programmers and other people just to simply let them know they were doing a good job and valued."  - Terry Foote

Guest Post: "Still Hosed Up" by Doctor Why

This is definitely becoming a month of guest posts. Here is the man with the TARDIS to tell us why Wikipediocracy is probably doomed. Plus, we get a fun photo at the bottom!


Still Hosed Up by Doctor Why


So…..what is the point to making comments about Wikipedia, other than to glorify it? For the past few months nothing has changed; In fact, in spite of a new criticism website ('Wikipedocracy' lol), nothing has really changed in years. No 'improvement' that I can see.

This blog ran a critique of W.P.O. back in June; months later, WPO sysop Billy Burns showed up and said…..

"This is the same as in any organization. We fill the holes and keep going. Andreas and a few other prized blog post writers moving to other venues hurt our blog output. We're going to have to find some more stellar writers. Would you have any suggestions? No, not you. Sorry. ;) "

And the owner of the blog rightly responded with:
"Monty, Monty Monty..... Go jump off the Star of India."

That's kinda pathetic, to be asking an enemy for help finding writers. Or was it snark? They have painted themselves into a corner perhaps? No, change that, it's more likely that Steve 'Greybeard' McGeady all by himself has painted them into a corner. Burns just does as he's told, and we all suspect old Steve is the one doing the quiet manipulation in the offline. I personally remember him under the old 'Gomi' name long ago; doing weasel things on Wikipedia Review. Maybe he just couldn't get very far on W.R. before because he didn't control the server and couldn't make outright threats. Looks as if he won't admit or discuss any of it either. No different than 'Elonka' or 'Mantanmoreland' or 'Ryulong' really.

The only useful blog writer they have left seems to be Greg Kohs. He wrote this fine item; one of the very few blog entries of recent months that wasn't a re-run of old crap. And shamed a few Wiki-diots into doing something about the crappy Ketel One article. One little mess fixed; among millions of others that remain unrepaired. The talkpage is lulzy.

This thread; in my sick opinion, is where Wikipediocracy's little act first turned the corner into stupid-land. EricBarbour pointed out some disturbing facts about Jimmy Wales's connections to the tech world; esp. Google and CreativeCommons and Larry Lessig; and it received favorable responses from almost everyone. Until 'Greybeard' showed up and started babbling about tinfoil hats and other bullshit. Dissing Barbour's comments but offering no rebuttal. Before this no one realized that 'Greybeard' loves Googleheads and their allies; in all seriousness. It's 'business' for him I guess. Maybe he owns a lot of Google stock; who knows. Barbour mentioned that McGeady used to work at Intel and asked him to talk further on the subject. And Burns frantically censored it. Don't give me any shit; I was reading the thread on that day and watched it happen. No wonder Barbour had enough of them. So have plenty of other people. Not all of whom are Wikipedia lovers either.

Everything connected with Wikipedia never changes. It's all sludge and backstabbing and incompetence. Picture the 'cool kids' table in middle school only on global scale. One wishes Steve McGeady would realize that he's never going to get 'control' of Wikipedia; or of any little bit of it. As Barbour already said; it will likely collapse into fighting and vandalism. Gomi will still be on the outside, mumbling like an old fool.

And so we have to ask; we were trying to write this material on October 19, and were 'inconvenienced'. Why was W.P.O.'s website down for most of October 19 and into the next day? Did someone post something that offended someone 'important'? I thought Encyclopaedia Dramatica had that area covered. Needle, needle, needle. ;)

                                           This photo is unrelated to Doctor Why's text; the
                                                         person depicted above is Ellen "Orlady" Smith,
                                                         Wikipedia administrator, employee at the Oak
                                                         Ridge National Laboratory, and former Oak 
                                                         Ridge city councilperson. Outed without 
                                                         her knowledge on Wikipediocracy three years ago.


[The "Star of India" mentioned in the post is a 19th Century museum ship tied up to the pier in San Diego, California. I was at least nice enough to not tell Monty Burns to climb to the the top of the main-mast before jumping into the bay. - Strelnikov]

Guest Post: Mutineer interviews Triptych, formerly of Wikipediocracy, on Wikipediocracy

The interview below came though the email; we had been contacted by "Mutineer" before and he was able to speak with Triptych.

Mutineer: What are your recollections of Wikipediocracy.com?

Triptych: Well, first I'd say it does a lot of good insofar as it conforms with its stated mission, which is to shine a light on the failings and abuses of Wikipedia. But, second, it's now increasingly steered *by* Wikipedia insiders. It's staffing its moderator slots with Wikipedia administrators like Hex and SB_Johnny. It had pretty near a welcoming party for new members Dennis Brown and Kww, who are two of Wikipedia's most horrendous administrators.

Mutineer: ...Why is Dennis Brown horrendous?

Triptych: Most recently he was a key operator in the "Orangemoody Investigation." That was touted by the WMF and ignorantly bought into by an alarming amount of mainstream press as some sort of victory over cybercrime. What was really happening is they were geolocating and terminating all these Bangladesh-vicinity editors that would accept pay to improve and maintain articles. So, on his blocking spree and erasure of the articles, Dennis was putting a good number of these impoverished third-world people out of work. Before that, he's shown himself to be a cyberbully on several occasions.

Mutineer: Back to Wikipediocracy. You submitted some articles to it?

Triptych: I've got a junior co-credit on one article on Wikimania 2014 that I didn't expect until I read it. So I was surprised. But reading the article I realized that, yes, it drew from a forum post or three I wrote. It was a good article, so okay. The first article I actually submitted was on the WMF's Philippe Beaudette, who resolutely destroyed the identication document copies submitted by the Wikipedia administrators seeking advanced accesses to look at the non-public information (IPs, locations, etc.) of Wikipedia contributors. He was in complete violation of the WMF terms of use, in which the WMF told Wikipedians "we know who they are, these people we're giving access to your information."

Mutineer: Go on.

Triptych: I wrote that article and it gets put into some sort of group-editing process in WO's backroom. So the article sort of has to be endorsed, I guess, by all of the trustees and staff. But I can't even see what they're saying mainly, they do a "black box" thing, and update me now and then. Kelly Martin had a problem with it, he or she says "focus on the system, not Philippe." But my point was it was Philippe doing it. The terms of use said "these people have identified to us." But Philippe's doing "shred and forget." So submitting the article to WO was a bad experience, and it got worse the next couple or three times I tried.

Mutineer: How so?

Triptych: Well, let me keep it brief. I wrote one about Bwilkins bullying the Nobelist. I was supposed to get final approval on the final version if they edited it, but they publish it at like 2 AM on a weekday my time without my ever seeing a single edit of it. The article been tweaked in (my opinion) stupid ways, and they've inserted inexplicable pictures after taking out the one that I worked on. I most objected to the fact that they stuck in a low-resolution image of a Nazi jackboot stepping on something as an analogy to Bwilkins behavior. I complained, and Greg Kohs said "okay we'll take it down." After that we tried to come to terms, but they tell me my article as it was didn't meet their standards. "Standards?" You should've seen that garbage they turned it into in the first version they posted. Later, Hersch completely rewrites my article, sticks in a couple or three original paragraphs, and puts it up with himself as author in the byline. I didn't get angry really, as his rewrite was high quality, unlike that first thing they posted. It was still based closely on my work and research, he even copied over one of my mistakes.

Mutineer: Anything else about your article submissions?

Triptych: Wikipediocracy asked me to expand on a forum post once or twice, and once or twice I submitted on my own. But the experience was reliably excruciating each time. The last time, which I thought couldn't possibly go wrong, turned out to be the most excruciating of all. I wrote an article that explored the "Anvil Email," AGK's threat to complain to Kumioko's employer which was carried out, and the stalking of Dutch Wikipedia participant Moiramoira. My article's thesis was "Arbcom behaved inexcusably." What the black box group-editing process at WO did was invert the thesis into "The Grave Menace of Sockpuppetry Sometimes Forces Arbcom to Take Extreme Measures." They ripped out the liver, spleen, and a lung of my article, and put it into something I completely disagree with. Kumioko is not even a sockpuppet, he wants all his edits to be known as him. Eric Barbour and "Yerucham Turing" were supposedly my co-authors on that abomination, but I never exchanged a word about it with them. I reached terms with Kohser to publish my objection at the article but Zoloft stepped in and said "The article is not meant to convey the opinion of co-author Triptych. It is meant to convey the opinions of Eric Barbour and Yerucham Turing." Which may be seen if you look close enough at the bottom of the article now. WO calls this co-authorship? I call it robbery of my work and research.

Mutineer: Let's move on. What do you see as Wikipediocracy's failings?

Triptych: To reset that for a moment, I want to go ahead and praise Greg Kohs for having the fortitude to launch the website. Yeah, they're the trustees and Zoloft and so forth, but it's Kohser that puts his butt on the line with registering the website and so forth, and lives with all the little Wikipedia administrative punks that no doubt send "stop harassing me" emails when a forum participant criticizes them. He also writes really decent and well researched articles. Now, WO's failings? Let's hit the frontpage first. Sometime the articles are very good. However "the well runs dry" all too often, and it republishes stuff from years ago. The other part is the discussion forums. To me, it's forum technology that is really dated. It's a 1990s sort of discussion board. I suggested one time "can you modify the board code to place the avatars of the last person that commented in the thread, to bring some visuals to the top forum menu screen?" But the management wasn't going to try that. It'd probably be difficult, so I understand. I also criticize the moderators SB_Johnny and Hex. Why doesn't WO just hand over the moderation to WP:AN/ANI, if it's going to use that sort? SB_Johnny is just an idiot. Hex is a little wiener in the classic Wikipedia administrator mode. He quit his admin rights at Wikipedia several months ago with an overwrought statement of dissolution, and a pout, and I instantly opined at WO he'd be back to reclaim his rights in a couple or few months. Bigger than heck, he did that, but not without Arbcom intervening to query him privately on some stuff he wrote at WO. Arbcom, I think it was Salvio, gloated "he answered all our concerns perfectly." Frickin' Arbcom lapdog Hex. Why is he a WO moderator?

Mutineer: I thank you for your time. In closing, let me ask how you see the health of Wikipedia criticism generally and into the future?

Triptych: Hey, listen, thanks to you, Mutineer, I'm happy to be here at Wikipedia Sucks! and get a chance to comment on these matters. The health of Wikipedia criticism is terrible. Wikipedia has such a great influence on web results and thus human knowledge that it's processes really need to be examined and critiqued. You look at the behavior of the administrative class, which I rightly describe as a "bullyocracy" and it's an aspect that needs to be burned like a bug on a sunny day with a magnifying glass. Who are all these people they've blocked? Are they're really any controls on them? You get a bully administrator like Kww and he gets two Arbcom case (unless I'm forgeting a third) amounting to like 80 days of process, would probably make as big a paperback as Stephen King's "The Stand," until he's finally dumped. Meanwhile these little monsters are perma-blocking editors with their little Twinkle buttons, a mere button click, at astronomic rates each day. I also question the WMF's status as a charity. They route the donation money to their employees and trustees in large doses, rather than doing the accounting as a corporation. Is Wikipedia's purpose really benevolent? No, I don't think so.

***

We sent the interview to Eric Barbour, who responded on the matter of the blog post:

Thing is, the WO admins never asked ME if it was okay to use my name on that blog 

item, and I essentially had nothing to do with it. Who to blame? Probably Zoloft, 

although it's impossible to prove.

Why Stierlitz was Thrown off Wikipediocracy's Message Board

Originally I was going to get Stierlitz to write about why he had been chucked out of Wikipediocracy, but he would not write about it, leaving me with the task (too many bad memories.)

Our Position on Wikipediocracy

Just to make it clear to the lesser lights at WO-MB (the Wikipediocracy Message Board), this blog is not opposed to Wikipediocracy; what we are opposed to is how that website is being run. As we see it, Wikipediocracy and its forum are a "home away from home" for a collection of mostly ex- or banned Wikipedians, people who want back into "the Project." Because of that, Wikipediocracy can't truly be taken seriously; most of it is coded kissassery to get back in, a sort of Masonic ritual of contrition....which never works because Wikipedians loathe Wikipediocracy just as they loathed Wikipedia Review. Ex-Scientologists ditch Scientology-think and the need for the "FreeZone" or "iScientology" faster than Wikipediocracy members quit, which means that they never wanted to be outside Wikipedia in the first place. When you have Greg Kohs (thekohser) threatening to DMCA the last post because it quotes WO-MB members, your forum and blog has become kind of a cult to the Wikipedia mode of "shit-talk, then bury it." Then they threw out MMAR (Wikipedia user Mighty Morphin Army Ranger) for some reason, but I'm getting a vibe it was for not being "compatible" with the unwritten rules of WO-MB. Which means he gets to join that long list of Wikipediocracy members who were chucked for little to no real reason.

Why Stierlitz was Locked Out and Banned

As he told it to me it went something like this: Stierlitz joined WO-MB to talk about Reddit because he had gone through the wringer there and nobody was talking about how truly shitty the moderators are on that website and there was nowhere to go to do so. Because they had an "Off Topics" and "Web 2.0" forums he submitted mostly there at first because he didn't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia, the personalities, etc. He became the uncrowned king of Off Topics, which seems to have quietly infuriated some of the senior members (though he got no hint of that.)

What killed him on the WO forums was that he reposted something he had posted to Reddit a year previous; there was a Tumblr blog called "More Names Will Be Named" which claimed a number of atheists and skeptics of being serial harassers. Those named were: Bill Nye (no real proof emerged), Michael Shermer (nailed badly), Jim Frenkel (editor at TOR books; blogged about), Lawrence Krauss (accusations dried up), Sean Faircloth (same), Ben Radford (discussed on this Wikia page), Jacob Fortin (proof never emerged.) The Tumblr blog was seized, deleted, and turned into a joke. Outside of scattered blog posts and that Wikia page, the "Misogyny War of 2010-2014" within atheism/skepticism has been buried. And that includes Stierlitz's forum thread; he was told by Stanstani (William "Monty" Burns) that it was taken down because of "fears of legal threats." Stierlitz decided to call Eric Barbour; he told Stierlitz some of the backstory of WO (Stierlitz was unclear about the fiasco that Wikipedia Review had been), they decided that taking a week break was a good idea for Stierlitz. He did so, then was locked out of his account at 4am, his avatar picture stripped off shortly afterwards. By December, when I was leaked that list, the account was dead, "retired."

                                                 The Stierlitz avatar used on WO-MB.

Where we Go from Here....

.....is a good question. A lot of the stuff I write about is already on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, but with jokes. I know the Essjay scandal needs to be talked about, or how Jimbo is walking away from Wikipedia......I really don't want to talk about all the child porn on Commons and Mozhenkov and Möller and other assorted slimeballs, but I have loads of material. However, it just makes me nauseous thinking about it.

If anyone knows who StukaLied of Reddit is on Wikipedia (I don't want his real name), please comment below.

The Aftermath

We need to mention some things that happened after I ran "FLOP", along with some things left unwritten from the Scientology posts.

Wikipediocracy Messageboard not Happy with Eric Barbour

Almost immediately after "FLOP: Why Wikipedia Criticism Will Always be a Waste of Time", there was a thread on Wikipediocracy's messageboard, which as of October 2nd, you can only reach though a Google cache because they hid it. Some comments:

Zironic: That entire blog is a weird incoherent mess that never seems to actually make any sort of point.

Casliber: Stream-of-consciousness speech can be pure and special sometimes[.]

The Garbage Scow: I'm not here very much. Why was Eric kicked off WO? What have I missed?

Greybeard: It was discovered that Eric was leaking information that he had promised to keep private to various outside sources, including Encyclopedia Dramatica and others. This made the people who had entrusted us with that information unhappy. As a result, Eric was asked to step down as a Moderator here, though he was not, and is not banned, blocked, or anything other than a member in good standing. Eric made substantial positive contributions to this site and whatever he says or does, those contributions remain, and he is welcome to restart his participation.

Over the years we've had quite a number of Wikipedia critics go off the rails in various ways, first on WR, and now here. I won't name names, but one can see that in the same way Wikipedia attracts a certain number and types of borderline personalities, so does criticism of it. In this, I suppose, I probably agree with Eric. What Eric would not agree with is that he is one of them. We could see it happening, and it was somewhat predictable that when caught in the duplicity noted above, Eric lashed out against us in shame and anger.

Eric has never had a cogent point to his Wikipedia-criticism-criticism, other than "they don't listen to me enough"! He's desperate for attention and validation of his views, and very thin-skinned about disagreement with them. It is this that makes it hard to be his ally, even when one mostly agrees with him.

thekohser: Greybeard is welcome to his own opinions of Eric's intent when re-publishing information that was thought of by everyone else as confidential, but I still maintain that what Eric did was not maliciously deliberate in any way in his mind; rather, it was an act of inadvertent carelessness.

Parabola: It was extremely tiring to finish reading it while my hand involuntarily kept making the jerk-off motion, but it was too funny to stop. Probably not in the way he intended, though.

Hex: Any enjoyment I had from Eric's posts has just been outweighed by reading "...Heebs (and more Heebs), transsexuals...". If that's what's been under the surface the whole time, I'm glad he's gone.

Zoloft: To be fair to Eric, his narrative is often 'set fire to everything, it all sucks.' For a better look at his style, in a private room far away from family and co-workers, peruse: Shit Planet

Tarantino: Wikihell is undoubtedly Eric's work, also.

Auggie: There are two inaccuracies in his coverage of Encyc, though I do appreciate the attention of course.

1) I am not banned from Wikipedia, nor do I have a blocked account.

2) Encyc was not a "fork" of Wikipedia in the commonly understood sense of starting with a copy of the database. Encyc was built from the ground up.

As for whether you did the right thing getting rid of your antisemitic, misogynistic, unreliable, game-playing, hate-speech spewing embarrassment, the answer is yes.

Tarantino ended the cached version of the thread by accusing Barbour of reusing a joke he supposedly posted to Encyclopaedia Dramatica under the moniker Lavrenti Beria (Jr.), then claimed he would never work with Barbour again. I have no idea if the Beria thing is true or not.

It wasn't all negative; The Devil's Advocate (now banned) understood the point, as did Randy from Boise and MMAR.

In a private email, Mr. Barbour took exception to Auggie's claims. He pointed out the account AuggiePaoli, which had undergone a sockpuppet investigation. Not only was AuggiePaoli banned, but so was RockFanUK, IamVince, and Lily4613 as sockpuppets of AuggiePaoli. Interestingly, the clerk in that case was Rschen7754; I know that guy is actually Roy S. Chen, formerly of the University of California at San Diego, who has since vanished into a basement somewhere. As for "Encyc", he pointed out that it had been heavily edited by banned Wikipedians like Proabivouac (Timothy Usher) and Ottava, but that proof was being deleted by Auggie because the site had also been used to coordinate Wikipedia editwars. He also stated that he thought Tarantino was behind "Wiki-HELL."

Scientology

I do have a connection to the Valerie Aurora story; one of her detractors is Barbara Graham, aka Xenubarb on Disqus and the Ex-Scientologist Message Board. I have had written communications with this person on ESMB and Disqus; in 2008, before I ran across Xenubarb, Graham (who is one of Keith Henson's friends) got Aurora's university to take down her webpage, including all the child-molestation allegations. I have never met any of the people I wrote about, either in the Scientology or LaRouche movement posts.

 I should add that I found L. Ron. Hubbard's 1970 list of "squirrel groups" hilarious because this was a man who had told his followers that they were all fallen gods, and then he got unhappy that some of them were forward-thinking enough to leave and form their own groups. That has to be the mark of the fake guru, that they are unwilling to let people take their ideas and run with them.

FLOP: Why Wikipedia Criticism Will Always Be A Waste Of Time

As promised, another guest post by E. A. Barbour on the state of Wikipedia criticism.

FLOP: Why Wikipedia Criticism Will Always Be A Waste Of Time

by E. A. Barbour


As I said in a previous post, I've spent four miserable years compiling a massive database about Wikipedia's history and showing why and how it went wrong. And now I have the miserable duty to admit and explain why this activity was a waste. It is clear by now, after more than ten years of growth, editwarring, abuse, lies, manipulation and outright criminal activity that one thing cannot be denied: Wikipedia is "special", and must be treated more as a religious reliquary than a mere website. Even its loudest critics also tend to be fans who love it deeply, and want to ensure its success. Some are also conflicted by a need to control certain content, for personal or professional reasons. Plus the distinct likelihood that professional media people rarely want to discuss Wikipedia scandals, because they depend on Wikipedia for their fact-checking. All of this history is populated with gigabytes of idiocy, tiresome argumentation, paranoia, monkey dancing, robotic masturbation, Heebs (and more Heebs), transsexuals, Eric Moeller's pale blob wideness, and even a few appearances by occasional people who were sincere and honest in their desire to see Wikipedia either be "cleaned up" or taken offline. All to no avail whatsoever. So, let's summarize this nonsense of "Wikipedia criticism" and be done with.


Wikipedia Review

Although plenty has been written (and censored and forgotten) about WR, between November 2005 and March 2012 it was the dominant website for criticism and open, honest discussion of Wikipedia problems. Yes, of course it was started by bigots (the now forgotten original sysop "Igor Alexander" was repeatedly accused of being an anti-semite, and former moderator Jeff "Blu Aardvark" Latham was provably a white supremacist from eastern Oregon). At first Wikipedia insiders could not shut up about this, and continued to harp on it long after "Igor" and Latham had left. Another major resident troll in the early days, Adrian "Blissyu2" Meredith, an obsessive conspiracy fan and Australian marsupial-creature, eventually also left.

During Wikipedia's massive growth phase (2005 to 2008), there was literally no place other than WR to openly discuss and critique Wikipedia operations. And the often-bizarre personalities who infested Wikipedia and the nascent Wikimedia Foundation, especially discussion in depth and with experienced editors. Any attempt to discuss serious problems on an "official" noticeboard, talkpage, or IRC channel would result in a swift bannination, smug personal attacks, and sometimes even led to  the careful reversion of every Wikipedia edit the critic had made--useful or not. Plus, WR was unique in that it tolerated the occasional "outing" of an anonymous Wikipedian. Despite many flaws, a very laissez-faire culture, and a good number of crackpot regulars and rubber vagina monsters, it was instrumental in exposing some of the worst abuses on English Wikipedia: the scary SlimVirgin, the William Connolley climate-change assmafia, bicycle-sex king Guy Chapman, Bela Lugosi cosplayer David Gerard, "Fat Heeb For Power Rangers" Ryulong, Gary "Hey guys I'm a Jew too" Weiss, "tool of Yahweh" Jayjg, the short-penised Israel Wikilobby, Will "Won't" Beback, and various other major comedy routines.

The "official" Wikipedia Review article is poorly written and has been constantly hacked at since its first appearance. The first version was written mostly by SlimVirgin, who made it as intentionally abusive and defamatory as possible. It has been deleted and restored at least six fucking times, some of which are not documented in Wikipedia's database. The latest attempt, 20 January 2012, was an abject failure and typical of the contempt Wikipedians have for any kind of criticism. Their rage at having their abuse questioned eventually peaked in one of the most asinine things any website has ever tried: the "BADSITES" arbitration. In which Wikipedia insiders arrogantly tried to convince each other that they had the right, and the power, to censor the entire Internet in any way they saw fit. Of course, they didn't. Of course, the discussion was heavily censored after the fact. Remember that this is coming from the website-clitoris that relentlessly screams it is "NOTCENSORED".

Unfortunately, people who should have known better eventually became the controllers of WR. By 2007 the main sysop was James "Somey" Somers, who claimed to be a former US government employee currently living in retirement in Des Moines. Somey continues to claim he has never edited Wikipedia, although he did spend years posting tiresome "satire" on the not-funny joke wiki Uncyclopedia. Daniel Brandt, who was already noted for his endless dispute with Wikipedia love-muffin Chip Berlet, was running a "Google Watch" website when he found that Wikipedia was full of power abuses; he soon had a "Wikipedia Watch" website and was quickly dubbed an Enemy Of The Wiki. You would have to ask him why he was motivated to go after WP. Few people in the world endured more abuse via Wikipedia biography than Brandt. Even one of the most notorious TS Wikipedians, Kelly Martin, showed up on WR to make accurate and damning comments on internal WP operations.

Most enigmatic of all is Steve McGeady, a retired former Intel executive and ex-coder who had been banned from Wikipedia for editing his own Wikipedia biography. He used the name "Gnetwerker" on WP, the name "Gomi" on WR, and "Greybeard" when he later helped start Wikipediocracy. Plus he allegedly owned a vanity website at gomi-no-sensei.com (pseudo-Japanese for "master of garbage" or something like that). Obviously he loves the letter G, like any good Oscar the Grouch fan. As an independently wealthy VIP-type and a dedicated supporter of his alma mater, the pussy-liberal Reed College, plus the owner of his own home server farm, he would seem to be well-suited to run a protest website. Again, you'd have to ask him why he wants to criticize Wikipedia, although I suspect his motivation is very simple: he wants to get back in there and continue to glorify himself. And try to neutralize the bio of his old Intel friend Mike Hawash, who was prosecuted by the Feds for "providing material support for terrorists" (by donating money to Muslim support societies). Obviously Hawash was a target of the Israel Wikilobby. If you're thinking this is all extremely stupid and petty, fear not; it is. Erections were scarce all around.

Most people reading this know the story of WR's decline. They invited too many honest people (plus some outright cranks and clown-cars) who were banned from Wikipedia: some of the more intelligent ones included perpetual Gary Weiss editwar victim Judd Bagley, angry Hollywood producer Don Murphy (who objected to his WP biography and was mocked mercilessly for it on WP noticeboards), and that curiously furious right-wing Catholic Jeff "Ottava" Peters. Plus philosophy instructor (and my co-author) Ed "Peter Damian" Buckner, professional music teacher Paul "fieryangel" Wehage, and Andreas "Jayen466" Kolbe. All three of whom really should know better than to try to "fix" the unfixable.  Not to forget Tim "Proabviouac" Usher, who was later shown to be a spy for SlimVirgin. Plus a mixed bag of many others. Mixed in with considerable valid criticism and analysis, WR hosted incoherent rants moaning about Wikipedia's censorious, phony and paranoid culture. Plus "outings" that might or might not serve a useful purpose, plus plots to "destroy" the indestructible website, and even some displays of outright raving madness. Occasional Wikipedia True Believers logged in under phony names and shrieked at the regulars. In short, it mirrored Wikipedia itself with some accuracy. A few 4chan-style "lulz" were had, little else ensued. So its demise in early 2012 should not have been surprising.


Akahele

Started by WR regulars Greg Kohs, one of the few honest paid WP editors and greatly despised in that little world, with Paul Wehage, Anthony DiPierro and Judd Bagley. It was a part of their "Internet Review Corporation", which apparently was intended to cover all aspects of Web abuse and corruption. Their website akahele.org went live in February 2009 -- and lasted exactly one year. It was essentially a group blog which ran a few interesting and useful postings. Still, it became clear that the "serious" approach doesn't work when it comes to Wikipedia brigading and nut-buggery. The most important thing in this little pocket universe is to worship the Magic Wiki and the Magic Anus of Jimbooger Wales. (Remember those immortal and insipid words, "It was basically a valid concept". People still talk like that today, unfortunately.) And anything not plugged into that rigid paradigm was clearly a non-starter and a bore, to Wikipedians. And Akahele didn't have a forum for trolls to call each other names thereupon. So, after months of being almost totally ignored, they admitted defeat, shut down the "Internet Review Corporation" and shut off the website. All that can be seen today are a few archive.org backups. The last new post was on 25 February 2010, by 2011 the entire site was gone, and by early 2012 the URL had been seized by spammers. The last visible capture was in June 2010.


Wikipediocracy

Again, most people reading this are aware of how WR collapsed. The probably-medicated young woman who was somehow in charge of the DNS registration, Sarah "Mistress Selina Kyle" Donovan, managed to beg the WP insiders into unbanning her. So she started to trash the WR database and erase its attached blog, to "gain their trust" or something. She was duly unbanned on WP, went on a rampage, and was quickly rebanned. Meanwhile the WR regulars became disgusted and started a new forum/blog. As before and as always, the seeds of its own destruction were built-in. Although Bill "Stanistani" Burns, a professional sysop, a Wikipedia editor in good standing, and a minor WR player, was made the sysop of Wikipediocracy (WO), the same personalities were otherwise embedded. Greg Kohs was responsible for the DNS, most of the same old farts (your humble narrator included) were in regular evidence, and hosting was provided -- by none other than Steve McGeady. I was made a moderator along with several ex-WR moderators and mucky-mucks, including John McConomy and Andreas Kolbe.

It started out well at first. The attached blog became a good adjunct, running a number of entries about Wikipedia atrocities. Some even attracted media attention; such as the "Qworty" story and the ongoing saga of "Wifione" (which Ed Buckner and myself authored). Both stories were stunning in their basic idiocy. Showing how "hosed" Wikipedia is, that's always easy. But inevitably, by 2014, WO went off into the weeds. Crazy we-must-SAVE-it types like "Kumioko" and "Kiefer Wolfowitz" showed up to bleat in their uniquely narcissistic way. WP insiders like "Mathsci" (RIP ha ha), "SqueakBox", "Kww" and "Spartaz" logged in primarily to splutter that they were "innocent" of any wrongdoing and that their critics were evil. All incredibly predictable. Despite not allowing well-known trolls like Ottava or Proabivouac into the forum, and Burns banning crackpots more frequently than WR ever did, it still came to resemble WR. And I won't even mention the spanking they administered to me in July of this year, except to note: I wrote many of the items on the WO wiki, and after my kicking Burns made most of the wiki articles disappear. Whether they were useful or not.

The main purpose, to get the news media to notice Wikipedia problems, inevitably took a back seat to squabbling and idiocy. I've got an absurdly long list of media mentions of Wikipediocracy, compiled by Kolbe originally. It's quite impressive. Sadly, journalists also seem to have short attention spans as well as a major blind spot when it comes to Jimboo's Crap Farm, so this list has only historical interest.


Others

There were other websites intended for Wikipedia-related discussion. Very few of them, in fact, and every one of them failed horribly. And the reasons were much the same as above: they were run by Wikipedia fans and tended to quickly become shrieky troll cunthavens. Whether Wikipeople admit it or not, their "magicpedia" is far more like 4chan or a hacker forum than anything "serious". And so are associated websites and "communities". They live to piss on each other's heads. Unlike the above, these lesser bitchfests were usually heavily censored, thus strangling themselves in the crib. The whole subject is insulting and more people ought to feel embarrassed by their connection to these disasters, but needless to say, Wiki-fans are akin to 4channers and have short attention spans and short memories.

In February 2006, perpetual pest "Grace Note" tried to start a forum called "Wikipedia Report". It was far from an attempt to encourage free speech: he disseminated a "manifesto" which ranted at length that criticism of Jimboob and friends would not be tolerated, racism would not be tolerated, and "outing" of Wikipedians would not be tolerated. Essentially nothing that Wikipedians really enjoyed would be tolerated. He could not stop calling Wikipedia Review the "racist board" or the "Igor Nazi Board". Because he could also not stop fighting with other Wiki-Fans, it was stillborn.

Insiders often forget that the supremely arrogant WP administrator/bureaucrat/checkuser Steve "UninvitedCompany" Dunlop started his own private Wikipedia discussion forum in January 2008, called "Wikback". Like Grace Note's proposed forum, it was massively censored and utterly intolerant of anything but positive happy-talk. It lasted a few weeks and its URL was quickly seized by Japanese spammers. Because the geek had "nofollow" links on it, there are no existing archives of it anywhere. Thus, in classic Wikipedia fashion, it "never happened". Step right up and see the dancing freaks, eh? Dunlop eventually became inactive. More people could take the hint.

Auggie, the sysop of failed Wikipedia "fork" encyc.org, started a Proboards forum called "Wikipedia Review" in March 2013, oddly enough. Auggie was banned from WP (predictably) and thought he could "out-reason" unreasonable people. Although it is still online today, like Encyc it is essentially a dead and drifting vessel. He's the only person posting comments. Haw.

We can't do this without mentioning the extensive coverage The Register gave to Wikipedia criticism and scandals, starting all the way back in 2003 and continuing today. It was the ONLY news outlet of any kind that regularly ran Wikipedia items that weren't slobbering love letters to Jimbo's foreskin. The two primary Register writers responsible for the WP coverage, Andrew Orlowski and Cade Metz, were pilloried for it on Wikipedia. To this day the Wikipedia biography of Orlowski (prominent tech journalist) is badly written and useless. Metz is repeatedly insulted in old noticeboard comments but does not "deserve" an article.


Conclusions

No doubt Wikipedia is declining. Recent discussions of it in news outlets, on Reddit and in other places make that quite clear. The Gamergate scandal was very damaging for Wikipedia as its combative insiders were drawn into the pointless squabbling. Jimbarf continues to give speeches for $50k-100k a pop, to accept awards, and to bask in the rectum-rubs administered to him by his fellow "digerati", despite having little to do with his "great creation" any longer. And the criticism, while it continues, seems to have been more of a vomit factory than a useful movement. Disagree and snarl all you want, you're the Japanese rubber monster; I can PROVE my assertions. Can you? Further information is available upon (serious) request. Although I admittedly expect that no one will take me up on the offer. Because no one cares; Wikipedia won and everything else is shit. Have a nice day, sucker.

To conclude, have a joke:

What's the difference between KillerChihuahua and a refrigerator? A refrigerator doesn't fart when you pull the meat out.

The Infamous "Not Censored" IRC chat, January 2012

Below is a record of an IRC chat session between "natbrown", "Funfood", "Nickname1" and Wikipedia administrator Snowolf (Maurizio Lussetti). Lussetti is a "domain name broker" in Trieste, Italy, aka a domain-name squatter with over 200 domains. He has been on both English and Italian Wikipedias since 2004, though he claims he didn't start editing/patrolling until 2007. I have no idea who the rest of these people are, and there is a 'bot in the thread as well. The month this happened can also be filed under "allegedly." The clumsy grammar and bad spelling has been preserved.

[10:31] natbrown has joined #wikimedia-commons

[10:33] natbrown Hi, I found some very unpleasant photos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_techniques_-_Circumcision_experience_%28Beschneidungs-Erfahrung%29.jpg[1]

[10:33] natbrown There is a video attached as well

[10:33] Funfood What is your problem with these files?

[10:34] natbrown There is a whole category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation[2] 

[10:34] Funfood there it belongs to, yes

[10:34] natbrown I am a woman. I find this very offencive. I don't want to see it.

[10:35] Funfood you don't need to open them, neither the files or the category

[10:35] natbrown Should this be in Wikipedia? Aren't there enough sites dedicated to these techniques?

[10:35] Nickname1 you'll get over it

[10:36] Funfood commons is not wikipedia, but there are, of course a lot of discussions about those files

[10:36] natbrown I found them by searching for "roll over"

[10:36] Funfood I for my part don't think that human body parts are disgusting somehow

[10:37] Funfood but your opinion may vary

[10:37] natbrown Very often I work with my granddaughter by my site. She is 8 now. Would you like your daughter or your mother to see those files?

[10:38] Funfood If they appear by accident on the screen, it is a good time to explain children something about the internet

[10:38] Funfood and my mother has surely seen a penis before;)

[10:39] natbrown It is pornography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography[3]

[10:39] natbrown There should be no pornography on Wikimedia. It isn't educational. 

[10:40] Funfood pornography

[10:40] AsimovBot [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/pornography[4] 

[10:40] Funfood the first lines are the important ones;)

[10:41] natbrown There is a page there about child pornography as well. Thank God no pictures!

[10:41] Funfood they would be deleted at once and the uploaders will have a hard time afterwards

[10:41] natbrown The children are exploited all around the world. 

[10:45] Funfood nudity

[10:45] AsimovBot [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/nudity[5]

[10:47] natbrown I was shocked to discover those files. I thought that Wikimedia had no videos of masturbation. What can I do?

[10:48] natbrown They are very offencive to any woman. I feel like someone has been mustubating in front of me.

[10:49] Funfood you can do what everybody can do: start a deletion request fpr the file. But you can be shure it will be rejected.

[10:50] natbrown I can't believe that you all have no those feelings. Are you all frigthen that if you lose those files peple wouldn't know where to find them?

[10:50] Funfood Sexual content does not mean it is bad

[10:51] == Snowolf_ [snowolf@wikimedia/Snowolf] has joined #wikimedia-commons 

[10:53] natbrown I will start a page on a facebook "Stop pornography on Wikipedia". The fact that it's only on wikimedia has no relevance. All files from wikimedia can be added with one click to Wikipedia. Lots of people donated to Wikipedia. Did they all know that there are such files there?

[10:54] Nickname1 okay have fun

[10:54] Funfood by creating this facebook page you can be sure that more people will come to commons just to see these files:)

[10:55] natbrown Do you really think that this is what the world need?

[10:57] Funfood I think that the world needs less censorship and more open minded people

[11:01] Snowolf natbrown: Wikipedia is not censored. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer[6] for the English Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, as an example. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CENSORSHIP#Censorship[7] for some idea of what is and isn't within the scope of Wikimedia Commons 

[11:01] natbrown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7SIDz3M5Y[8] They say that Wikipedia is doing what they can to delete phorn. The video that is attached is porn.

[11:04] natbrown If I meet some man that I don't know they don't do those things in front of me. Why they should do it online? Why you should provide a space for it? Is it where the donations are going?

[11:07] Funfood so why just don't delete the whole internet? There's porn in it (I heard)

[11:07] Snowolf Oh the Young Turks; that is from over a year ago, and child pornography is taken seriously. But otherwise the projects are not censored.

[11:08] Funfood the file you linked has definitively educational content, even if it is sexual content

[11:10] natbrown Funfood: are you admin? For how many years are you on mediawiki?

[11:10] Snowolf Different things may be offensive to different people, in different countries. There is no worldwide sensitivity on things, and even if there was, who would have ot make the call. It just doesn't work that way, Wikimedia strives not to be censored as much as possible.

[11:10] Funfood no, I am no admin and I am here for just some months 

[11:11] natbrown Are there any admins here?

[11:11] Funfood but I don't know how this should influence my opinion

[11:11] Snowolf There are some people to which the existence of images depicting Prophet Muhammad is offensive, as you're probably aware; to others, sexually explicit images are a problem.

[11:13] Snowolf In the end, you end up making everybody unhappy. Now I am sorry that an image like that bothered you, each one of us has a different sensitivity, and there may be/is content on Wikimedia projects I might find objectionable too 

[11:14] Snowolf But we don't censor things. Could things be improved? Always. Is it easy? No, striving a balance between removing images of no education value (because Wikimedia Commons is not a free host for images akin to imageshack and the like) and censorship of useful images is not easy, but it is important to err on the side of caution. 

[11:15] Funfood well said 

[11:15] Snowolf Some user more involved than me in the Commons project could give you a better answer in any case, just trying to offer my perspective and understanding of it. 

[11:17] natbrown If you have been on this irc for some time, they you should know the feelings of other users of this channel. Does everyone think so? 

[11:18] Snowolf natbrown: I have been on irc for some years yes, but other users could tell you better than me the consensus onwiki, which is where it really matters. IRC is but a small spectrum of the opinions onwiki discussion can offer. I don't think it is ever the case that everybody thinks one way, once enough persons are involved 

[11:19] Snowolf This case is no different 

[11:19] natbrown Where do I find them? 

[11:19] Snowolf nadar: I will try and look for the discussion that happened 

[11:20] natbrown Thanks. 

[11:20] Snowolf natbrown: I believe the most recent proposal on this matter was the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum[9] 

[11:21] Snowolf the results of it are on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en[10] 

[11:21] Snowolf This was a Wikimedia-wide proposal 

[11:21] Snowolf But this was just a filter to hide such content from view 

[11:21] Funfood oh the link I gave was wrong, i meant this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity[11] 

[11:23] Snowolf natbrown: that page Funfood just linked details how Wikimedia Commons deals with nudity and sexually explicit images and offers links to both policies and two proposed guidelines that failed, where you can find the discussion 

[11:31] natbrown I know of the schools that allow children to go to Wikipedia, I don't think that they know of those files. They are very damaging to the kids. They don't need to see it. 

[11:33] Funfood in which way damaging? 

[11:37] Nickname1 because the human body is sinful and if they see pictures of it they'll go to hell

[11:38] Funfood Ah, heard of this concept 

[11:46] natbrown Is there anyone there who thinks the same as me? 

[11:47] natbrown Am I the only one who is horrified? 

[12:00] natbrown OK, it looks there is no one to answer:( I have opened the page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745?sk=wall[12] there is a photo of my granddaughter there. I am doing it for her. 

[12:01] natbrown I will copy and paste this conversation, so people know why I have opened the group. 

[12:02] natbrown!admin@commons 

[12:03] Snowolf You cannot copypaste this conversation without the permission of all involved 

[12:03] Snowolf Otherwise you would be in violation of copyright. 

[12:03] Snowolf Personally, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced. 

[12:04] natbrown I don't care, I feel like my soul is being torn apart. Do you know the feeling? 

[12:05] natbrown I do it and those who want can object it. I will answer them for what I have done. 

[12:07] natbrown I will delete ip addresses to keep people privacy. 

[12:08] Snowolf You are free to reproduce all that I've said, however you really shouldn't reproduce what other have said without their permission. It is automatically copyrighted in a good chunk of countries, including the United States 

[12:10] Snowolf In any case, you are now aware of the issue. Please try to keep in mind that each of us has a point of view, and sometimes we should take a step back and try to see everybody else's 

[12:10] nickname2 it's not really a copyright issue 

[12:10] Snowolf Sensibilities are really different in different parts of the world 

[12:10] nickname2 but rather a privacy issue 

[12:10] nickname2 even if the channel is public, the channels logs are not ought to be public 

[12:11] Snowolf nickname2: that's another matter, which stems from freenode and channel rules 

[12:11] Snowolf In any case, I feel I've tried to explain what I could:) 

[12:14] natbrown Can you refer me to the policy that I can't make this conversation public? 

[12:17] natbrown Funfood: Are you against of what being said to be reproduces publicly? 

[12:18] natbrown Snowolf: Do you want me to change your nickname? 

[12:19] Snowolf natbrown: as I stated before, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced at all. 

[12:19] natbrown Shall I leave you name as Snowolf: 

[12:20] Snowolf Sure:) 

[12:20] Snowolf http://blog.freenode.net/2007/12/blogging-about-logging/[13] this is some detail on the issues of releasing logs, but in any case I would just ask Funfood about it 

[12:21] natbrown I can change it. I only want to explain the issue to other people. I don't need to have name. Fundood is not answering. 

[12:26] natbrown Snowolf: Thank you for allowing to publish the conversation. [12:27] Funfood I have no problems if you let my opinions there 

[12:31] natbrown Funfood: Thanks. I have to open the page on Facebook since I can't find anyone who supports my opinion here. I think that the matter is very important for general public.

---

[1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_techniques_-_Circumcision_experience_%28Beschneidungs-Erfahrung%29.jpg

[2]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

[4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/pornography

[5]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/nudity

[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer

[7]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CENSORSHIP#Censorship

[8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7SIDz3M5Y

[9]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum

[10]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en

[11]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity

[12]http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745?sk=wall

[13]http://blog.freenode.net/2007/12/blogging-about-logging/