On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the > problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a > purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy > development an important concern.
Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment: Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value, should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance. (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be a somewhat curated repository, after all. The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised. (cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile) - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
