Wiki Unseen

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 255 times
Contact:

Wiki Unseen

Post by badmachine » Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:58 am

this might belong in the Foundation subforum, move if appropriate.

Wiki Unseen is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation which aims to add illustrations of people with Wikipedia articles but without photographs:
About Wiki Unseen
Did you know we are more likely to remember pictures and images than words? And that on the internet, images have an impact on what people discover because search engines tend to drive more traffic to Wikipedia articles with images than those without? These are just two factors that contribute to a pressing problem in the open knowledge ecosystem: a lack of visual representation of Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of color (BIPOC). Pictures have power. So what does that mean for the numerous biographies on Wikipedia that do not have images? It means more articles are left unread, stories untold, and faces unseen.

The Wiki Unseen project started with recognizing the visual gaps within the open knowledge environment. We kicked off this project with a list of 2,000 notable BIPOC people whose pictures could not be found on Wikipedia and, with the help of our partners at AfroCROWD, we narrowed it down to 20 historical figures. We counted on the expertise of our partners at Behance who put forward three artists from the same region as the subjects we wanted to illustrate; each artist chose two names they wished to depict. By commissioning original artwork and making it freely available, we are helping people everywhere visualize what these historical figures who were left unseen for far too long looked like.

There is more than one way to tackle a problem this complex and make lasting change. Why did we take this approach? We decided to illustrate notable figures to combine knowledge and creativity, all while providing up-and-coming artists who hail from the same regions as those figures an opportunity to share their talent with the world in an artful and unique manner. Art inspires, drives change, and encourages people to share their vision, which can lead to increasing awareness of this pressing problem. Other possible approaches include procuring pictures and releasing them under a CC0 license. Successful procurement however can require significant or recurring licensing fees, ongoing negotiations or requesting the public release of photography from family collections.

These are not the only pages on Wikipedia without photographs, however. There are multiple community-led projects that aim at closing knowledge gaps on Wikipedia—and everywhere. Learn more.

Get Involved
There are more than one million biographies that are missing pictures on English Wikipedia alone. If you would like to share your talent and help us close visual knowledge gaps, you can create an illustration and submit it to the Wikimedia Commons. Before you start, read the instructions below to ensure your submission will be accepted.

When you make drawings of a person based on photos, you can take them as inspiration or reference. But you must make sure that your drawing is not:

a reproduction:​ the same image but in a different mean,
a derivative work:​ a new work with many recognizable elements of the original.This resource, created by Whose Knowledge, should serve as a helpful guide for drawing Unseen figures for Wikipedia.
Notable Figures Missing Pictures
If you would like to help but do not know where to start, check out the list below which features notable BIPOC whose pictures cannot be found on Wikipedia—or elsewhere. Like everything else on Wikipedia, it is important that the work uploaded is factually correct, so also add your research notes and source so your artwork can be considered and verified. Thank you for helping us share the knowledge by sharing your talent with the world!
... followed by an abbreviated list. a fuller list can be found here.

sounds like a good idea i guess but a couple of problems come to mind:
1) isn't death covered by fair use? why use inferior drawings when a photo is out there for the stealing?
1a) for those that are not dead, does Wikipedia policy allow such illustrations?
2) are these artists paid? if so, how much?
3) is an illustration by an unknown artist encyclopedic?
4) is it art?

the video looks slick and decently produced. i wonder how much it cost and whether Commons is hosting a copy?

obviously art appreciation is a subjective thing but if i was Ali-Ollie Woodson, i'd be pissed if this was illustrating my article: link because it wont embed

the wikipedians either havent noticed or dont care. but to my eye that sort of flat art illustrative style is a crappy way to illustrate someone.

well dang. Smiley beat me to it, im about six months late. :/

(edited)

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:55 am

badmachine wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:58 am
Wiki Unseen is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation which aims to add illustrations of people with Wikipedia articles but without photographs:
This is HILARIOUS. I was bitching them out years ago about the numerous bios with no illustrations. So were others.

Up till now there was always "excuses": "that has to be left to the community" and "the WMF can't afford to hire artists" and things in that vein. They always had excuses. NOW they are rolling in money, someone successfully humiliates them about the scarcity of illustrations for BIPOC bios (to hell with the thousands of Caucasian bios with no images), and oh looky this time there's "action".

No one remembers the thousands of often-shitty photos people like David Shankbone took, of random celebrities seen on NYC streets? No one remembers the illustrations drawn for things like donkey punch, pegging, and lolicon? Did everyone already forget that semi-legend Seedfeeder? At least his art was reasonably competent.....

How about "the texture of the scrotum"? Does an "encyclopedia" need all this crap? Does it need 335 photos of the glans, or 265 photos of the foreskin?

Do I need to start listing the stupid, incompetent, insane and sometimes-disgusting things Commons did over the years? Because we would be here for weeks. And it won't even scratch the surface.

I have the PERFECT illustration to put on Erik Moeller's tombstone. Because he was a major reason all this shit happened.
Screenshot 2022-08-28 at 19-54-47 Lolicon - Wikipedia.png
Screenshot 2022-08-28 at 19-54-47 Lolicon - Wikipedia.png (78.05 KiB) Viewed 1500 times
the video looks slick and decently produced. i wonder how much it cost and whether Commons is hosting a copy?
This wasn't a major expense. What IS a major expense: actually paying artists to generate HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of missing images, sometimes of long-deceased people for whom no portraits even exist in the first place. Same for inanimate objects and places. And so, you can expect the WMF mandarins to snivel at portrait artists to work their asses off at no charge, or for some pittance. And we will get a paltry selection of low-quality material, as people sign on, learn how much work they must crank out, and quit in disgust.
but if i was Ali-Ollie Woodson
That is really funny, in fact. Looks like a cartoon someone stole from Deviant Art. Pathetic amateur crap. Which means Wikipedia will use it OF COURSE.

Google his name. Hundreds of photos appear. As a member of the Temptations for many years, he was photographed LOADS of times. I find it a bit difficult to believe they can't find ONE free-licensed photo, or could not beg a photographer to donate one damn photo. But then, a "nerd cult" would not want to deal with "outsiders" if at all possible.
well dang. Smiley beat me to it, im about six months late. :/
It's okay, better to mention now than never. I had not noticed this "project" before, and I do scrape thru WMF websites frequently. The fact that it is almost unknown tends to indicate that it will probably fail. Like most other "valued projects of the WMF".

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:38 am

I dare you to ask me what Kasuga, the creator of Wikipe-Tan, has been doing since 2007.

You won't like it.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by wexter » Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:20 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:38 am
I dare you to ask me what Kasuga, the creator of Wikipe-Tan, has been doing since 2007.

You won't like it.
Japan turns a blind eye to "soft" Child Pornography and "soft" pedophilia - to include "manga."
Beyond the business entertainment zone of "Roppongi" there are all sorts of culturally acceptable Japanese customs which are morally wrong and totally illegal in the United States (they are even illegal now in Japan but I am sure they are tolerated)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JK_business
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JK%E3%83% ... D%E3%82%B9

You would think Wikipedia would not institutionalize "Soft child porn" in the form of manga. Where does child porn in the form of Wikipe-tan belong?

but that is my guess when it comes to Kasuga
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:54 pm

wexter wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:20 pm
but that is my guess when it comes to Kasuga
Since you know nothing about this, I will provide his Pixiv account, which is still being updated. The really sick stuff was removed from his Deviant Art account long ago when people discovered what he did off-wiki. But he'll always have Pixiv. You have to create an account to see everything. Warning: extremely disgusting content. The pedophilic stuff is only part of his sickness. And he's not the worst person on Pixiv. If I want to really fuck with a "weeaboo" about the deep madness of Japanese culture, I force them to look thru random Pixiv accounts.

Remember: this is the same freak who created the "wholesome and adorable" Wikipedia mascot.

https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/8686

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by wexter » Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:41 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:54 pm
The pedophilic stuff is only part of his sickness. . If I want to really fuck with a "weeaboo" about the deep madness of Japanese culture

Remember: this is the same freak who created the "wholesome and adorable" Wikipedia mascot.

https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/8686
The "Wikipedia mascot" is not "wholesome and adorable" it is highly objectionable as "Child porn" (soft or otherwise). Worse "child porn" in the form of the mascot is being normalized by an institution with no control process.

Coincidentally, I have been looking into "Eric Moller"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_M%C3%B6ller
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/wikipedia- ... -tells-fbi
“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate,” Moeller wrote in 2001 in a post on Kuro5hin.org that he titled, "Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect." These writings were drudged up by Valleywag in May 2008.
(I cannot believe the WMF quote in the above article is correct, or correct in context. If it is correct the guy in charge of addressing Child Pornography, well... it would be unconscionable )

Moller claims he was defamed

http://intelligentdesigns.net/my-defama ... xperience/

Yet there is Wiki-tan?

He is mentioned here; where (in the top level box) there is a tacit acknowledgement that "manga" is a vector for child porn on Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARe ... ia_Commons

YOU would think that an article titled "Reporting of Child Pornography Images on Wikimedia Commons" would tell folks how to report Child pornography on Wikipedia so it can be addressed and removed.

Instead its a missive about Larry Sanger (being the bad guy)

Written by, you guessed it, a Manga enthusiast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jinnai
On April 7, 2010, Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, sent a letter to the FBI stating that Wikimedia Commons was hosting child pornography, contrary to Title 18 of the United States Code. His accusations focused on images in the "lolicon" and "pedophilia" categories, the latter of which contained explicit drawings of sexual acts between adults and children by French artist Martin van Maele (1863–1926).[1]

Shortly after Sanger posted the letter in public, criticism came in from multiple sources. This ranged from assertions that he had mislabeled lolicon as child pornography to the contention that his actions were an attack on the Wikimedia Foundation, caused by his history with Wikipedia and his own competing online encyclopedia, Citizendium. Sanger denied that the letter was an attempt to undermine Wikipedia, but did confirm it was an attempt to force a policy change for labeling or eliminating "adult" content on Wikipedia.

Things escalated when Fox News began reporting on the issue. In response Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, and other administrators began deleting images en masse,

Lolicon


https://crowdsourcelawyers.com/criminal ... in-the-us/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

Does an institution debate "what is and what is not morally correct" Institutions need to "hold the moral high ground"

The moral high ground being mentioned by Wikipedia, without a care in the world about the concept.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground

"Parties seeking the moral high ground simply refuse to act in ways which are not viewed as legitimate and morally defensible.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Jennsaurus
Sucks
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:31 am
Location: Debrecen, Hungary
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by Jennsaurus » Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:22 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:54 pm
The really sick stuff was removed from his Deviant Art account long ago when people discovered what he did off-wiki.
I briefly viewed Deviant Art over a decade ago before understanding what it was really about. Then the day came when I accidentally came across pictures of little boys in underwear and chains and literally ran away from my computer crying. We purged all the Internet settings and took the computer to get a clean wipe since I wanted no trace of any connection to that website left on my computer.

That is a bad bad site. I am very surprised the authorities have not taken it down.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Sep 01, 2022 12:37 am

Jennsaurus wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:22 pm
That is a bad bad site. I am very surprised the authorities have not taken it down.
You don't get around much, do you? Deviant Art has been a complete raging madhouse since it started. Five years ago DA's owners sold out to wix.com, who purged their top management (even their most despised moderator and fetish cartoonist, "Tom Preston", got the hook, although no one will admit he was fired) and instituted new rules: no detailed pics of genitals (especially male), no sexual penetration, no "loli", and no sex-related torture. ("Regular" torture is still A-OK with them. So are boobs.)

The artists were ordered to self-censor or be banned, and the vast majority of them hid the genitals. But there are a few holdouts, and the site still isn't "work safe" or "child safe". They recently loosened the rules for "mature" content, partly because like Tumblr's recent attempt to purge all the adult imagery, they lost uncounted thousands of users. Many of whom were PAYING for a premium account.

They also banned "individuals or organizations that proclaim or support a violent mission", but only made a half-hearted pass at cracking down on Nazi / fascist or "white supremacy" artists. (Wanna see one? Here you go.) You can't read about DA's "history" anywhere either---they are notorious for deleting all traces of internal scandals or disputes. You could go to Encyclopedia Dramatica and try to read about it, but even their DA articles are a shredded mess these days. The Wikipedia article is okay but not especially detailed.

None of this means a damn thing anyway. A determined teenager will have no problem finding extra-creepy stuff on 4chan, Pixiv, Furaffinity, Newgrounds, or dozens of other sites. There are always alternatives. Welcome to the "libertarian" internet. A haven for the sickest members of "society".

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by wexter » Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:34 am

Wikipedia puts little effort into Yiffing.. complete with anti-furry hate groups; "the no-fur-nazi's?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiff

A juicy near-porn picture on Plush fetish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plushophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plushophi ... CF1080.JPG

Add in My Little Pony and you have a trifecta

And running accross yet another Wikipedian whack-job on a whack-a-doodle mission to write endless missives about transsexuals; all the variations of transsexuals, ancient Muslim transsexuals, had arguments with a professional transgender Jokestress, who has doxed her/his opponent from time to time, writing about transexuals at a "Forest Gumpian Level"
a goodly number of Wikipedia's most powerful admins/insiders have undergone M-F gender change. I daresay it is a larger percentage than the population at large, given how few admins WP actually has esp. today. And worst of all, some of them are among the craziest people Wikipedia has ever seen, period. EB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hfarmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... 62/Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... /Archive_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard ... gynephilia
and the 1950's classic TV show Buffy the Homosexual Transsexual featuring a well hung Mrs Ed the talking horse of course..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_transsexual


The Jokestress who literally sucks Adams apple; from Wikipedia Sucks thread the "Transexuals in Wikipedia's Administrative Culture - topic508"
Andrea "Jokestress" James. Never became an admin but might as well have been one--did many abusive things and was protected by powerful insiders. -- EB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jokestress
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?t=508
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerican_Love_Story

PS tell me if this makes any sense, or sense in context of an encyclopedia (or educational reference) of any kind
Transsexual is a term for how a great many people identify what they are separate from being transgender. IF this was going to go with a overall overhaul of the Wikipedia on this then it might be fine. This however is Wikipedia it doesn't work that way. Every article has people who keep an eye on it and most of them have attained a sort of meta-stability. It would be very hard to change that stable state, and if we upset it the result might be worse. Ideally category transgender people would contain subcategories Transsexual ( for medical transitoners anyone who has had surgery and hormones), Transgender (for those who have not), non binary etc. The PROBLEM arises in that since many youngsters feel that transsexual is offensive it will become about having a specific source where the person who is trans says "I am a transsexual". Since of course we would not want to put something pejorative in there. This change in point of view would be a slow death of the term transsexual before its time. Maybe in 20-40 more years their point of view will rein. By then generation double Z will find their terms offensive. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... categories
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wiki Unseen

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:09 am

wexter wrote:
Thu Sep 01, 2022 2:34 am
And running accross yet another Wikipedian whack-job on a whack-a-doodle mission to write endless missives about transsexuals; all the variations of transsexuals, ancient Muslim transsexuals, had arguments with a professional transgender Jokestress, who has doxed her/his opponent from time to time, writing about transexuals at a "Forest Gumpian Level"
a goodly number of Wikipedia's most powerful admins/insiders have undergone M-F gender change. I daresay it is a larger percentage than the population at large, given how few admins WP actually has esp. today. And worst of all, some of them are among the craziest people Wikipedia has ever seen, period. EB
This list is nowhere near "complete". But you will find several administrators on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... ikipedians

Post Reply