Hoi,
Discussions of single images is not productive. There are probably other
pictures that are best removed. They are the exception not the rule.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 October 2010 11:02, private musings <[email protected]> wrote:
> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, private musings <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Robert / all,
> >
> > I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able
> > to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but
> > related to the Controversial Content study;
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
> >
> > In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously
> > which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in
> > the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously
> > removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such
> > material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be
> > talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) -
> > and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such
> > material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.
> >
> > Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and
> > I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the
> > decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at
> > commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available
> > to 'oversighters' here;
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
> >
> > I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any
> > board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Peter,
> > PM.
> >
> > ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16
> > year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent
> > could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a
> > basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content
> is
> >> now up on its own Meta page
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three
> .
> >> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it
> has
> >> been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All
> >> three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting.
> Either
> >> the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again
> to
> >> all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated
> >> very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Commons-l mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
