Tuesday, September 22, 2015

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.


No comments:

Post a Comment