Wikipedia

[playingwithknives]

Has anyone noticed that all the images are disappearing from Wikipedia pages?

I came across the following article in The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/wikipedia_aphrodites_araldite/) (NSFW), and through it a link on Something Awful (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2203918&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) (NSFW). The reason it's not safe for work was the subject matter was both crude and amusing enough for SA and The Register to pick up on it. It's all due to a new policy being maintained by a hardcore of Wikipedia Editors, all open source evangelists that are removing all copyrighted images, even if the permission has been given for the image to be used by the owner. Hence the inclusion of user created images and NSFW nature of the two stories. Legally there doesnt seem to be too much of an issue of using press release shots and the like, its more the using of copyright free images exclusively on the principal of it.

I use Wikipedia alot, and I think it's taken a real negative hit in the usefulness of its pages. If I'm reading about a live person, actor, politician or otherwise I no longer get to see an image of them. Just a few clicks of 'random page' will show a noticeable lack of images. This is all to Wikipedias detriment I think.

Poking my nose into the Wiki world showed some pretty hardcore politics and more drama than Livejournal, so any comments I thought about making there would have been pointless.

[Robert Sharp]

Well, Wiki is only so useful anyway, and I agree the pics are a big part of what DOES make it useful. The writing is open-source, which is a bad idea for research. But at least with pictures, you get some reality thrown in. I'm a little confused about the problem though...is it NSFW images or copyright images that are being removed? Or is it both?

[Zylon]

I've run afoul of the rules lawyers on Wikipedia many times. It's getting to the point where you can't even say the sky is blue without one of these little Napoleans squawking, "Original research! Need citation!"

[Uncle Larry]

I'm guessing there was a more tasteful picture of semen that was perhaps copyrighted by some medical book so a user "submitted" his own image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Semen2.jpg) (<--NSFW)

He has also sumbitted various other images (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex) (also NSFW) and some of them are discussed. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex)

[Ben Sones]

I think Wikipedia is very useful. I mean, sure, you have to be wary of accuracy issues. It's not a good source for, say, serious research (although it can often lead you to good sources for serious research). But I think it makes up for that by being so absurdly comprehensive, especially on pop culture information that you'd never find in an encyclopedia (or, probably, anywhere else). I use it to look up info about TV series and the like all the time.

[chet]

There is this fun paradox with wikipedia.

I was submitting a description to something which I am the copyright holder of, but it was removed because it was copyright protected. When I pointed out I had rights to it, because it was something i/company owned - i was told you should not edit your own entries.

I cried.

Chet

[dannimal]

Wikipedia is fine for unimportant stuff like pop culture, but it's such a dram-filled pile of crap beyond that it's laughable.

[Fugitive]

I'm a little confused about the problem though...is it NSFW images or copyright images that are being removed? Or is it both?
It's the copyright part. A lot of images are currently being used under the 'fair use' clause, but they're afraid of the limitations that might impose on them in the future. The commonly-used argument is that if they wanted to print a bunch of articles in book form, they'd have to charge for the book and then the images would no longer be usable under fair use, so they'd then be in violation.

(To which my mind mumbles "Well then strip them out as you're assembling the book!", but what do I know...)

[dannimal]

It's not just fair-use and book concerns, though. They've pulled stuff that had been granted rights to use as well.

The whole idea of Wikipedia is that i's unlimited in size/scope, and flexible in being able to update. Yet they chain themselves to the paper encyclopedia with their "how to write" guidelines and then stupid stuff like this.

[Zylon]

The whole idea of Wikipedia is that i's unlimited in size/scope, and flexible in being able to update. Yet they chain themselves to the paper encyclopedia with their "how to write" guidelines and then stupid stuff like this.
So you want Wikipedia to be more like UrbanDictionary then? No editorial standards at all? Ick.

[Jason McCullough]

I was told you should not edit your own entries.

Wikipedia has some real crackpots running it. They don't like the most relevant person imaginable editing an entry. You have to make it over some arbitrary famousness threshold to get it. They accept no alternatives to the old white guy encyclopedia writing style. They consider anything with outside citation unreliable, but no reliability assessment is done of citations, apparently. The founder and the core set are all libertarian white guys with technical jobs. Etc., etc., etc

[mouselock]

I think Wikipedia is very useful. I mean, sure, you have to be wary of accuracy issues. It's not a good source for, say, serious research (although it can often lead you to good sources for serious research).

Actually it's a fantastic source for serious research if you're lucky, because it's very, very hard to use tools like google and the like to start off the citation train. Wikipedia, though, by its nature is a broad level overview of things, and that can lead to pointers which will get you important works and authors which you can then use to do your real research. In my books that makes it probably one of the more useful research tools out there. (I'd never actually do the research without verifying the original sources, of course. But then, theoretically, you shouldn't do that anyway.)

[Alan Dunkin]

Wikipedia has some real crackpots running it. They don't like the most relevant person imaginable editing an entry. You have to make it over some arbitrary famousness threshold to get it. They accept no alternatives to the old white guy encyclopedia writing style. They consider anything with outside citation unreliable, but no reliability assessment is done of citations, apparently. The founder and the core set are all libertarian white guys with technical jobs. Etc., etc., etc

Ah this is too funny. Wiki entries should instead be written ghetto-style, like the black people do in the hood. Imagery should be in all easily straypaintable graffiti.

Obviously wiki is completely useless because it's run by libertarian white guys in technical jobs. Instead it should be operated by homeless traditionalist Japanese and Maori sheepherders.

It's amazing - an online public domain encyclopedia written in the style of most other encyclopedias operated by people who traditionally created and wrote encyclopedias. Frankly I'm shocked.

--- Alan

[shift6]

All images are copyrighted. Submission by the one who took them doesn't change that. I guess the wiki blowhards only want photos which were taken by photographers who have now been dead for 70 years or whatever.

The founder and the core set are all libertarian white guys with technical jobs.
So the only difference between the crackpots and you is that they support open source software or something? Hee-larious.

edit: damn spelling

[Flowers]

I find uncyclopedia to be more accurate and useful. Particularly regarding Oscar Wilde and current events.

[dannimal]

So you want Wikipedia to be more like UrbanDictionary then? No editorial standards at all? Ick.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't say they should have "no editorial standards" and that I didn't mention UrbanDictionary at all. But thanks for that.

You can have editorial standards without being the kind of power-hungry, drama-queenish wanks at Wikipedia.

[dannimal]

All images are copyrighted. Submission by the one who took them doesn't change that. I guess the wiki blowhards only want photos which were taken by photographers who have now been dead for 70 years or whatever.

But submission by the one who took them with the permission to use it does change it. Deciding "Well, if we ever wanted to print some of these articles we'd need to charge people to get copies. If we did that, we might be violating the copyright usage we have online. Therefore, we should take down all images from the web" is moronic.

[SlyFrog]

I like the fact that original research is verboten on Wikipedia. Because as we all know, good research can only start if you throw down some random facts that some other random person researched (which are much less likely to be without bias).

Personally, I think the next step is to ensure that the cited sources themselves did not engage in original research, but instead relied on other research. I'd like to call it the "Tertiary Sources Only" policy.

[Kalle]

I recall a blog post about people who were "playing wikipedia" as a game. Much like trolls feed off forum flamewars, they fed off engaging in wiki-politics, powertrips and drama.

[tromik]

There is this fun paradox with wikipedia.

I was submitting a description to something which I am the copyright holder of, but it was removed because it was copyright protected. When I pointed out I had rights to it, because it was something i/company owned - i was told you should not edit your own entries.

I cried.
Heh. You could edit the entry for "Irony" and insert that as an example.

[Jason McCullough]

I see Alan and shift made very reasonable interpretations of what I wrote.

[Alan Dunkin]

Thanks. You don't see incredible lunacy typed out in lucid posts every day.

--- Alan

[Michael Fortson]

I enjoy using Wikipedia, and I find it useful, but it doesn't take much exposure to some of their "removal" discussions to completely loath some of the people who administer it. It adds a sour note to the experience.

[Brad Grenz]

I'm guessing there was a more tasteful picture of semen that was perhaps copyrighted by some medical book so a user "submitted" his own image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Semen2.jpg) (<--NSFW)

He has also sumbitted various other images (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richiex) (also NSFW) and some of them are discussed. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex)

Wow. Street flashers go Web 2.0.

[jfletch]

I use Wikipedia alot, and I think it's taken a real negative hit in the usefulness of its pages. If I'm reading about a live person, actor, politician or otherwise I no longer get to see an image of them. Just a few clicks of 'random page' will show a noticeable lack of images. This is all to Wikipedias detriment I think.

I totally agree, but there also seems to be a lot of grubby, fan-type pictures taken when people were at a restaurant or something. See John Stewart's entry, for example. It's really bad and looks cheap.

Open source nazis have really let me down.

[shift6]

But submission by the one who took them with the permission to use it does change it.
No it doesn't.

Deciding "Well, if we ever wanted to print some of these articles we'd need to charge people to get copies. If we did that, we might be violating the copyright usage we have online. Therefore, we should take down all images from the web" is moronic.
I agree.

[RichVR]

For fun check out the Derek Smart page. And the talk page. Hours of enjoyment. Depending upon what you might consider enjoyment.

[SlyFrog]

Ahh, I have a new favorite. Under "Sexual Positions," there is a description of "Road Head." At the end of said description of "Road Head," there is a wikipedia bracket saying, "Citation needed."

It's gold Jerry, gold!

[SqueakyFoo]

Note: We do not generally accept newer submissions to this gallery. If you upload a home-made photo of your penis, do not be surprised if it gets deleted. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Penis)
heh. NSFW, obviously.

[Ch. Hasslbauer]

All-Clear!

I don't follow Wikipedia discussions by principle, but as the Albert Camus page indicates, it's safe to assume that the open source folly has ended. The world is safe again!

[Warning]

I went to look up stress at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_%28medicine%29) today and found this interesting tidbit:
Common factors of stress

Below is a non-exhaustive list of common stressors in people's lives:

* Bright light
* Elevated sound levels
* Events: births, deaths, rape, war, reunions, weddings, divorce, moving, chronic illness, loss of role, identity, meaning.
* Responsibilities: Unpaid bills, lack of money
* Work/study: exams, rush hour traffic, project deadlines
* Personal relationships: conflict, deception, bullying
* Lifestyle, (un-healthy eating, smoking, heavy drinking, not getting enough sleep, etc.)
* Exposure to stress early on in life can permanently enhance the stress response (ie: abused children)
* Age
* Andy
* Rabid Chickens
* Russian Reversals
* Westlife (Also a known factor of suicide and emoness.)

Okay....

[Timemaster Tim]

The problem with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that, well, anyone can edit it. I would expect that any of the articles on significant topics would be well-researched and written, and kept that way through sheer numbers of people looking at it, and nonsense like the stress factors list wouldn't creep in, or would fixed relatively quickly.

But I would expect more minor topics might have the artifacts of random contributions remain much longer.

What I've found is that it's a good source for pop culture information, and for exhaustive minutae for anything related to Star Trek or other fan-driven obsession of geekdom. So if you need a list of all the Star Trek ships by class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starfleet_starships_ordered_by_class), then there you go. But then trekkoids have always been a bit obsessive.

[John Many Jars]

For fun check out the Derek Smart page. And the talk page. Hours of enjoyment. Depending upon what you might consider enjoyment.

Wow! That talk page may be Smart's finest hour. I love how Huffman and the mods pretend to give his sockpuppets the benefit of the doubt, despite that unmistakable diction (he never tires of saying "you just don't get it do you?").

[madkevin]

I also like how "Supreme Commander" mentions that Smart never uses aliases, which if I'm not mistaken is one of the reasons he got the boot from here.

[AndrewM]

A few months ago I removed a reference on the WW2 page to some dude who was apparently Hitler's co-Fuhrer.

[Timemaster Tim]

Wow! That talk page may be Smart's finest hour. I love how Huffman and the mods pretend to give his sockpuppets the benefit of the doubt, despite that unmistakable diction (he never tires of saying "you just don't get it do you?").

Holly crap! I just had a short glance though that. It's like the space-sim newsgroup moved over to wikipedia. I thought the flame war had died out, but it seems to still be burning away.

[Shadarr]

They're seriously considering putting out a print edition of Wikipedia? Do they not understand the reason for their own usefulness?

[Gordon Cameron]

Well, on print, everyone can write in the margins. :P

[Alan Au]

They're seriously considering putting out a print edition of Wikipedia? Do they not understand the reason for their own usefulness?
Uh, no, they're not doing this in lieu of the online edition. I think the idea was to take "approved" version of pages and burn them to CD for distribution in places without internet access.

Wikipedia has its uses as well as risks. Of course, at some level it's an exercise in bureaucracy.

- Alan

[Fugitive]

They're seriously considering putting out a print edition of Wikipedia? Do they not understand the reason for their own usefulness?
Hey, there are kids in deepest Africa with no internet access at all. Do you want them going through life without being able to look up in what episode Goku finally reached the level of Super Saiyan?

[DennyA]

I like how Huffman states that he has no interest in the Derek Smart Wikipedia article on the talk page for the Derek Smart Wikipedia article.

Derek is outspoken in a manner that has not been beneficial to his status in the game industry, but Huffman is a stalker supreme who I'd love to see put through a full battery of psychological tests.

[Shadarr]

Huffman didn't say he has no interest, he said he isn't interested in editing it. As far as whether Huffman or Smart is crazier, I say they should quit fooling around and just have sex already.

[Fred Bauder]

I like the fact that original research is verboten on Wikipedia. Because as we all know, good research can only start if you throw down some random facts that some other random person researched (which are much less likely to be without bias).

Personally, I think the next step is to ensure that the cited sources themselves did not engage in original research, but instead relied on other research. I'd like to call it the "Tertiary Sources Only" policy.

I noticed this post while researching an arbitration case involving the Wikipedia article on Derek Smart. I am a Wikipedia administrator and arbitrator. We have devoted some attention to that question, as simply because what someone alleged is published in a nominally credible source does not magically render it credible. See the essay on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Fact laundering. However, it is usually not necessary to retreat clear to tertiary sources (encyclopedias and other reference works) to find credible information.

[Brendan]

I noticed this post while researching an arbitration case involving the Wikipedia article on Derek Smart. I am a Wikipedia administrator and arbitrator. We have devoted some attention to that question, as simply because what someone alleged is published in a nominally credible source does not magically render it credible. See the essay on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Fact laundering. However, it is usually not necessary to retreat clear to tertiary sources (encyclopedias and other reference works) to find credible information.

Ok mister administrator. Care to explain why some sick pervert gets to post an image of a civilization he's just blown all over his couch without recrimination from you bloated sacks of pompous waste and a guy like Chet can't post an image he took that he has given you carte blanche for you to use?

[Vincent_GC]

This could suddenly get interesting.

[Alan Au]

Ok mister administrator. Care to explain why some sick pervert gets to post an image of a civilization he's just blown all over his couch without recrimination from you bloated sacks of pompous waste and a guy like Chet can't post an image he took that he has given you carte blanche for you to use?
Uh, I think you forgot to take your meds again.

- Alan

[Lum]

They later released the game in what could be described as an unfinished state in October of 1996.

It could also be described as... what? A partly finished state? A completely unfinished state? Cheese whiz? Help me out here, Wiki.

[shift6]

Ok mister administrator. Care to explain why some sick pervert gets to post an image of a civilization he's just blown all over his couch without recrimination from you bloated sacks of pompous waste and a guy like Chet can't post an image he took that he has given you carte blanche for you to use?
If that doesn't motivate someone to come back to a forum that they had otherwise never attended before, I don't know what will!

[Flowers]

Uh, I think you forgot to take your meds again.

- Alan


Moratorium on all "Chill Pill" related and derivative snaps, please. Please substitute with, "Someone must have just gotten fucked by their dad!"

[wumpus]

I recall a blog post about people who were "playing wikipedia" as a game
Indeed, it's exactly like the one you're playing right now.

[Kalle]

Indeed, it's exactly like the one you're playing right now.

I'll need a source for this or I'm afraid I'll have to delete your comment.

[Brendan]

Apparently alcohol and a two hour Bill Hicks album marathon brings out the best in me.