Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
(anonymous) wrote: [...] while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? [...] ^^ I'm not a native speaker, but I'd think that you cannot omit Andrew's qualification , though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia) without changing his statement complete- ly. And I have a hard time trying to align this act of omis- sion with good faith. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Andrew Garrett wrote: It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). That may be true, but if the subject is or appears to be 15.5 years old instead of 16, then that would indeed count as child pornography, even in NSW, and disseminating such material would be a crime, with a maximum penalty of 10 years jail. http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/act+40+1900+pt.3-div.15a+0+N? It's a fine line to walk. Given the current climate you can expect a broad interpretation of appears to be. In any case, part of the job of a sysadmin is to help the Foundation comply with whatever local laws they wish to comply with. If Mike asked me to help him comply with a local law in Angola, I wouldn't complain that the law isn't the same in Congo or wherever I happen to be at the time, I would try to help him out. If there was some issue of conscience, I could consider resigning, but obviously that wouldn't come up if I'm being asked to remove some rubbish cameraphone home video from the deletion archive. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
In the specific case of the 16-year-old uploader's image, we don't really know if it was child porn or not, and the uploader denies that it was. A self-identified 16-year-old girl uploaded an artistically processed image that was cropped to show a woman's genitals apparently engaged in masturbation. Because of the artistic processing it is not obvious whether the image was based on a photo, or if it was based on an illustration (as the uploader claims). Regardless, the image was not identifiable as a child. The entire case that this was child porn is based on the identity of the uploader and the suspicion that the image might have originally been a self-photo before the image processing. Hence the image was deleted and oversighted out of what might be termed an abundance of caution. It might be illicit, and there were some reasons to be concerned that it was, but no definitive knowledge. However, since it wasn't actually useful to our mission probably better to be safe than try to worry about it further. That kind of caution is probably entirely appropriate when minors upload self-made images with sexual content. However, it should be acknowledged that we are unlikely to ever really know whether this particular image was child porn unless the uploader chooses to confess. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:00, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: 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 HHOKyou wanna get the only fun from poor oversights, naughty naughty/HHOK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. I don't see it that way at all. The narration was calm and unsensational and a gentle pan across an image can hardly said to be grossly misrepresentative either. As for taking the images out of context of articles; well as they may be viewed on Commons with no context I don't see that as a valid point. Don't misunderstand me, I think our articles on sexual organs should have a photo and Commons is our repository for such. But I was somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Дана Monday 18 January 2010 16:33:00 Bod Notbod написа: somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? I'm mostly surprised that we DON'T. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? Heh, after I pressed 'send' I thought, I'll have a link in my inbox in under 5 minutes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:23 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. That was rewritten ages ago to allow the files to be kept and undeleted and need be (so in theory they are now only removed from accessible part of the software, not the file system), they would need to be kept and not destroyed if they were brought you in court/criminal proceedings because they would become evidence. It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). We don't really want to be handling any more than a request or two each week/month under this system, and it's done mostly in the interest of taste – the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable, and deleting them is mostly about protecting innocent snooping administrators from seeing them. If there are legal issues involved, they should be discussed directly with our General Counsel, and not speculated about by volunteers who may lack the requisite legal expertise to make a decision on the Foundation's behalf. The community should be discussing editorial and administrative reasons for dealing with these images, not legal ones. -- Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us/ Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). We don't really want to be handling any more than a request or two each week/month under this system, and it's done mostly in the interest of taste – the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable, and deleting them is mostly about protecting innocent snooping administrators from seeing them. If there are legal issues involved, they should be discussed directly with our General Counsel, and not speculated about by volunteers who may lack the requisite legal expertise to make a decision on the Foundation's behalf. The community should be discussing editorial and administrative reasons for dealing with these images, not legal ones. With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. And in any case, permanently deleting such images (so that they can't be recovered without extraordinary effort) has its own editorial and administrative benefits. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Nathan writes: With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative. With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-) It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the communities, might be able to do - lemme give it a shot :-) There's obviously an ongoing issue of some sort for Andrew, as a 'dev' to write above 'the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable' - could you (or Andrew) confirm that the appropriate authorities were contacted in the case of child pornography being uploaded - and would we agree that this is something the foundation can help facilitate as oppose to responsibility lying with the communities? while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? - In the context of andrew requesting discussion with counsel as oppose to each other, it might be good to clear that up? The bottom line is that I think the foundation can provide leadership to the communities, as well as specific software adjustments, perhaps including things like 'click here to say you're 18', or some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' - what I hope I'm showing by highlighting the volume and nature of much media on wmf projects is the fact that for a variety of reasons guidance and leadership from the foundation would be a good thing :-) (please note that I'm not asking for hundreds of images or articles to be deleted, nor am I claiming the wmf is nasty, evil and depraved, nor that looking at folking putting bits and bobs into each other (and themselves!) is necessary a bad thing - just that discussion of regulation is a good idea!) Perhaps worthy of note also is the nature of project usage, as another commons user put it semi-rhetorically; 'are we becoming a systematic pornography source?' ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pumpdiff=prevoldid=33968683) These stat.s; http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ seem to say 'yes' - there's a clear use of commons as porn source in my view, and I don't think commons as 'the best porn you can get at school, or in the library' is a good look for wmf :-) - mileage may vary of course, but thems my thoughts. Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) best, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away. - d. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
heh! indeed - I don't think anyone would expect you to disclose everything on this list! That would be rather silly ;-) I'm also certain of both your expertise and connections in regard to law enforcement, DOJs and whatnot - I certainly haven't meant to imply that your expertise in this regard is anything other than an assett for the wmf! I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) I do not believe it is a good idea to expand duties of OTRS beyond those required by law. I do not believe OTRS is currently required by law to manage assertions of model age and release. I do not believe OTRS could scale to assume such duties. I do believe that attempting to get the Foundation to impose top-down intervention in this case when you can't persuade the community itself of your concerns about explicit media is a bad thing. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/17 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: 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; Whats that got to do with management? Any service that allows user uploads of images is going to get hit by such uploads from time to time. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Mike Godwin wrote: Nathan writes: With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative. With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations. +1 Crystal clear. Nice to have it on the record from the person who holds your present office. Yours; as a faithful internet veteran, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.orgwrote: (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). Last I checked the WMF falls under US law, so you might want to read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_2256000-.html and reconsider that comment. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
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_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=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_masturbation_pastel.jpgaction=editredlink=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=28221view=findpostp=216072 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! best, Peter, PM. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
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/Incidentsoldid=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.jpgaction=editredlink=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=28221view=findpostp=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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
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 smole...@eunet.rswrote: 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/Incidentsoldid=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.jpgaction=editredlink=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=28221view=findpostp=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 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
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. -- John Vandenberg That was rewritten ages ago to allow the files to be kept and undeleted and need be (so in theory they are now only removed from accessible part of the software, not the file system), they would need to be kept and not destroyed if they were brought you in court/criminal proceedings because they would become evidence. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/14 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: snip As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. What if they aren't used in an encyclopedic context? PM says he highlighted 17 images [1]. Assuming Commons Global File Links is accurate then these images appear on 27 content pages in Wikipedias and Wikibooks (not counting User and Talk pages, etc.). However, two of the images account for 16 of the uses, and 10 of the 17 images are not used on any project at all. This is of course a largely anecdotal sample (and there is no reason to assume that PM's set is random), but my personal impression has been similar. It seems to like we have seen a rise in unused sexual imagery being stored at Commons. I'll happily defend the usefulness of sexual imagery in many of the places where it is used, but there are downsides to allowing such collections grow far beyond the applications we have for them. -Robert Rohde [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Дана Thursday 14 January 2010 05:59:39 David Goodman написа: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, David Gerard wrote: 2010/1/14 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. - d. That's because it is exactly that. - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktPXm0ACgkQst0AR/DaKHuicwCg2x0Dcpv1nB8lh98NQx0RJEiM OPkAoKmotRssidFp74KIJuqCgwLdPFek =SB6G -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Explicit images don't need to be used in an encyclopedic context
(Wikimedia is more than just an encyclopedia). They just have to be
_potentially_ useful in any Wikimedia project context (that's the
narrow, utilitaristic view on Commons) or in any possible educative
context (that's the more broad view on Commons, that views Commons as a
project on it's own instead of a auxiliary project). For almost any
picture it's possible to construct some example cases where the image
could serve a demonstrational purpose even if the quality is low and
similar images are available abundantly on Commons. We have lot's of low
quality penis self-shoots? Lot's of material to illustrate the bad
examples section of the Wikibooks guide How to Present Yourself
Favorably in Adult Forum Profiles!
So we shouldn't think about the question How can we reduce the amount
of material. From the previous e-mails by private musings I got the
impression that he is mainly concerned about the fact that there is no
way to control the display of explicit images on a personal level. Even
if somebody accepts that others want to see the images and if he just
wants to have a method to get rid of them for him personally, there is
no way to achieve this except for don't click on Wikimedia links or at
least think twice whether it could contain explicit images. And I am
with private musings on this. I for myself have no interest to exclude
explicit images, but it means improved freedom for others if we
provide a method to allow excluding explicit content. A template at
Commons like {{explicit content|oral intercourse|penis|breasts}}
stating the explicit contents visible in the image would be an easy
starting point. Let the template add some invisible HTML divs, provide
some Javascript to evaluate the divs and make it a gadget. Then
everybody will be able to exclude the personally unwanted content. If a
school wants to exclude explicit images, they switch on the gadget by
default. It's at least better than having Wikipedia blocked cause the
content cannot be controlled. That way moral panics would be
impossible cause anything immoral can be controlled.
One other thing that as a side effect could reduce the amount of
explicit material is to introduce a more professional release procedure.
If we'd require proper USC 2257 releases for explicit content, that
would improve our legal position and it would automatically lead to less
anonymous low quality uploads. That's something I would support.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/13 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, email Mike Godwin. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/13 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, email Mike Godwin. Part of the problem is that people who think they understand the whole of the argument being made actually don't. Arguments against censorship address only a part of the concerns Privatemusings and others, including myself, have expressed. PM's comment above referring to Section 2257 alludes to much of the rest of the concerns - specifically, the rights of the individuals featured in the photographs themselves. There are ~25,000 images in the Commons category of potential personality rights problems, but the Commons policy (COM:PEOPLE) essentially leaves it to the ethical discretion (and nose for appropriate sounding file names) of the uploader to manage rights issues. Attempts to address this problem are sporadic - an example is a group of over a hundred images from a Dutch photographer with a checkered past, whose work has been largely removed from Flickr (from where it was imported to Commons). After quite a lot of debate and delay, many of these images were deleted on Commons in 2008 - but since then, many new ones have been uploaded. To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't think having specific material documentation is necessarily as important as asking the questions and getting an identifiable person on the other end to assert that these issues have been considered responsibly. We accept copyright releases into OTRS that are little more than written assurances that everything is okay, and I don't see why we couldn't ask for the same thing here. And, in the unfortunate event that things aren't okay, we would be able to point a specific individual who misled us rather than simply saying that we closed our eyes and didn't care. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/14 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me... I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Were we to ever become unable to host these images in the US, we should considering moving to some country where it would be possible. That's how strongly we ought to feel about the principle. As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: G'day all, I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption to these requirements? best, Peter, PM. ___ 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
