Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the place.
Regards, Thyge 2014-05-28 23:54 GMT+02:00 Wil Sinclair <w...@wllm.com>: > Sorry, the n00b has to step in with a couple of clarifications. :) I > was asking about 2 separate issues, so no conflation there. > > Also I asked very carefully for *all* sides of the issues: "Now, I'll > just sit back and hear all sides of the story." > > All right, back on topic! :) > > ,Wil > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Morton > <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be > >> changed here to better protect children, especially given some of the > >> content on Commons. I'd also like to hear about specific examples of > >> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their > >> children. Note that this is not a repeat of the discussion to > >> understand what policies are in place, as I have already opened a > >> specific thread for that. > >> > > > > You seem to have conflated two items here... one is the idea of child > > protection, and the other is of objectionable items on commons. I don't > > think that in any way works. > > > > Our child protection policies are about protecting children when they > > interact online. This is a perennial problem for any internet site, as I > am > > sure you know. We do have some policies that help a lot (for example, > > admins always err on the side of caution and delete personal details that > > underage editors post). We have avenues to report potential issues such > as > > grooming. > > > > Could more be done? Yes, I've thought so; for example publicising the > > problem more. > > > > But is WP worse that other communities (note; not site) of similar size? > > Probably not. At least not in my experience (which, of course, is pretty > > extensive given my former job). > > > > Child protection from porn, etc.? I think it's well established that kids > > can come across porn anywhere (apparently, Facebook, if my cousins' > > activity on there are anything to go by :S). And frankly, it's never > struck > > me as an issue under the umbrella of "xhild protection". > > > > How far does policing it become our job and not that of a parent? It's a > > difficult decision... especially when browser-based content filters are > > prevelant and easy to set up. > > > > I've always said; we should educate our users about how to install and > use > > content filters, as this will benefit them outside WP too! > > > > So then, on the flip side of your comment here you have the global issue > of > > objectionable images. > > > > This is a much broader issue that the narrow one you're focusing on here. > > For example, one of the main (and by main I mean constant and persistent, > > beyond any complaints of porn!) complaints we see relate to images of the > > prophet mohammed. > > > > How do you, then, feel about Commons hosting images like that? > > > > One of the tenets of the projects are that they are not censored, which I > > think is a good thing. However, we've not yet struck a balance between > > displaying everything and filtering things an individual doesn't want to > > see. > > > > I like the Mohammed example because it emphasises the problem where those > > of us who are not Muslim find a subset of images perfectly okay, but a > > Muslim might not. > > > > > > > >> > >> Since I don't have enough experience with the community and WP yet to > >> discuss controversial topics myself, I will not chime in unless the > >> thread has very obviously gone off topic. Just to pick an arbitrary > >> about of time that is more than the few months that others have > >> mentioned here, let's say that you can only participate in this > >> discussion if you have at least one year of experience as an active > >> contributor. > >> > > > > I'm not sure what purpose it serves to bring up controversial topics, in > > this forum, with an express note that you have nothing new to bring? ;) > > > > Not to be too critical; but do you imagine that these issues aren't being > > discussed on the various projects - hopefully with incremental > improvement > > each time. Or that individuals here are not aware of them? > > > > More than anything though, I'm sure you're an experienced internet chap - > > what did you expect to recieve in stirring up two relatively ingrained > > "sides"? It wasn't very deft, I have to observe :) > > > > One thing it might be important to communicate is that whilst this list > is > > useful for global discussion, it's not a venue that any agreement or > > consensus is reached. So these discussions are really best conducted > > on-wiki. I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to open such topics on > > any of the projects, but the discussion you appear to be looking for can > > really only happen there (rather than here, or IRC, for example). > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
