I'm more raising the issue that what could be child pornography remains available to wmf volunteers with 'oversight' op.s on commons - I don't think the foundation should facilitate that, and I hope a decent enough system can be quickly implemented (it's also quite possible that there is in fact a system in place, but it's unknown to me!) for the depressingly inevitable 'next time' I'd probably go a step further and say that sub-optimal / insufficient systems for dealing with predictable problems indicate a general lack of responsible governance in this area (ie. I'm sadly not surprised that this issue occurs in this way) - but mileage inevitably varies... I'm hopeful of hearing of a strong resolution to this one imminently.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nikola Smolenski <[email protected]>wrote: > Дана Sunday 17 January 2010 22:13:28 private musings написа: > > Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; > > It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have > been > > uploaded to commons; > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic > >eboard/Incidents&oldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The > > image in question has been deleted from commons; > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastu > >rbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 ..and I think it's also been > > oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review > > whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is > the > > right thing to do; > > > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28221&view=findpost&p=216 > >072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short > term, > > that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to > > oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really > > would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. > > Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so! > > This is an interesting case, but I don't see what it has to do with > policies > on explicit images on WMF projects. Even if the policies would be changed > to > be the strictest possible (for example, no explicit images allowed at all), > the exact same thing could happen. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
