Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
Would it stand any chance to file against Foxnews for slaunder? It seems they are also actively approaching organizations who donated support to wikimedia. teun On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Techman224 techman...@techman224.comwrote: It seems like Fox News can't get enough. Fox News has a history of being the opposite of its so-called fair and balance reporting. I think that they went too far with saying that“Wikipedia’s continued interest in child sexual exploitation is troubling not only because the site hosts some questionable images, but because it can easily serve as a gateway to other sites containing child pornography, I'm pretty sure 100% that Wikimedia doesn't support child porn in any way, plus these images are art that were created so long also they are in public domain, and if they were child porn, they would be removed already. I also know that Erik Möller does not support child porn. If he did, he wouldn't be at the foundation right now. Fox News went too far with this, and they should actually investigate the story before making accusations. Fox News is biased. Techman224 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:55 AM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote: Would it stand any chance to file against Foxnews for slaunder? It seems they are also actively approaching organizations who donated support to wikimedia. The recent mass deletions have made it harder to refute their outrageous claims— since they can now state that these images previously existed but must have been deleted. Images tagged for deletion — though some were still viewable Friday afternoon — include pictures of men, women and young girls involved in a range of sex acts with each other and, in some cases, with animals. I have no doubt that this is referring to any of many 18th century drawings of historic and artistic interest which we still have. For example, as was pointed out on commons, it could even be describing an image like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leda_Melzi_Uffizi.jpg (though it was probably describing something more raunchy, some of the french drawings from the 1880s are pretty crazy) In any case, I've never seen _photographs_ meeting the above description on commons. Sadly we can no longer take the easy path of combating the outrageous claims of child porn by pointing to categories such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pedophilia filled with old drawings sourced from the US library of congress and point out that _this_ is what Fox and Sanger are complaining about — because now people will just believe that there previously was something else there which we've since hidden. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Fox Article
Updated April 27, 2010 Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/ Erik Möller is particularly unfair. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
You read that article, and what you got from it is that *Eric* is being unfair? Wow. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 06:49:06PM -0400, Nathan wrote: You read that article, and what you got from it is that *Eric* is being unfair? Wow. I think he means they're being unfair to Eric :-) -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
It seems like Fox News can't get enough. Fox News has a history of being the opposite of its so-called fair and balance reporting. I think that they went too far with saying that“Wikipedia’s continued interest in child sexual exploitation is troubling not only because the site hosts some questionable images, but because it can easily serve as a gateway to other sites containing child pornography, I'm pretty sure 100% that Wikimedia doesn't support child porn in any way, plus these images are art that were created so long also they are in public domain, and if they were child porn, they would be removed already. I also know that Erik Möller does not support child porn. If he did, he wouldn't be at the foundation right now. Fox News went too far with this, and they should actually investigate the story before making accusations. Fox News is biased. Techman224 On 2010-05-07, at 5:44 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: Updated April 27, 2010 Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/ Erik Möller is particularly unfair. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
