In light of religious terrorist attacks in Paris, please see Category:blasphemy!

WikiMedia watch

From Freedom Porn
Jump to: navigation, search

Today WikiMedia has redefined what we see as knowledge to such an extent that we are unable its projects have become the first stopping point for each for information of all kinds. Wikipedia, Witionary, WikiMedia Commons... are all awesome projects and they promote freedom of information, attempts at consensus building, and cooperation. But not all is warm and fuzzy.

WikiLeaks ban

Wikipedia community's decision to attempt to distance itself from WikiLeaks has set back that project. WikiLeaks has gone out of its way as a project to make it easier for people to get access to the information and to use it in the analysis. By the very definition all work of the government employees of USA government is in public domain, and it is very relevant to many of the articles. However, this information is not being incorporated, and many roadblocks are placed before a person who attempts to do so.

Change of notibility guidelines for Pornographic actors/actresses on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2012#Improving_PORNBIO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2012#PORNBIO:_yes_or_no.3F_.28maybe.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2012#PORNBIO_criteria_regarding_awards_.28straw_poll.29

The attempt to redefine what it means to be a notable pornographic actor or actress. This will have an impact on what articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Already there are some administrators and general wikipedians who ignore the current guideline and delete the articles which should have been kep otherwise.

First discussion was closed as no consensus, but later the policy was redefined with the following "It looks like there's a pretty good consensus for excluding scene awards and ensemble awards as criteria. New-comer awards are clearly consensus keep, and nominations look like no consensus."

Deletions of the sexual images and images containing nudity on Commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests

Almost constantly there are some deletion requests open on WikiMedia Commons which request that some media file considered to be sexual is deleted. Now it is clear that there are some which warrant deletion (for example those which are simply lifted off of some other site), but the overwhelming majority are nominated out of the distaste for bare human body.

Non-deletion attempts at censorship on Commons

On several occasions some Commons users have attempted to introduce some sort of non-deletion censorship mechanism that would hide images from view without actually removing them.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nsfw


Bad File list on English language Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list

Of course, it is important to combat trolling, vandalising, and other anti-social behaviour in any community. Thus keeping a list of files which are commonly used for such purposes is very rational for such a large project as Wikipedia. However, unfortunately this list is often being used to censor Wikipedia and to disallow the useage of a nude image except when it just cannot be avoided.

Such an outlook creates two thing: Firstly, it forces people to consider nudity as somehow “dirty”; such an approach, taken to the extreme on Russian language Wikipedia caused the article on woman to have picture of a female in burqa, but not to have a single one that is nude (even though the article doesn't actually discuss female clothing). Secondly, it does become slippery slope, where people argue that the image should be outright deleted or some even propose that Wikimedia Commons's scope should be rewritten to only serve English language Wikipedia.

Historical archive of censorship and anti-sexuality

User:Bodhislutva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bodhislutva

A user that had many good contributions to Wikipedia has been banned, harrassed, accused of being a feminist (the accusetion she proudly accepted). And all that just because she has combined the terms denoting sexual liberation and buddhism.

Commons distrusts Freedom Porn

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alexander_Ahimsa_-_Silly_Kids_in_Toronto_-_14_Fucking_in_the_Stairwell.jpeg
see also Freedom Porn:updates/Freedom Porn's life and struggles

Photos uploaded to our project were reuploaded to WikiMedia Commons (by an unrelated user), and very speedily they were deleted with the claim that the administrator is unsure if Freedom Porn has broken any laws. If there was ever an abuse of the "precautionary principle" this is one.

See also