(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
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
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
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
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
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?
___
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
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
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
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,
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
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 --
( 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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;
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
-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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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,
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
