ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
"In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, *consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites* from having their material
included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either
take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet
protocol (IP) addresses in Australia."
( from
bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings <>wrote:

> ...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
> I reckon....
> No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
>  for example.
> Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
>  full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
> of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
> 'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
> know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
> I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
> should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
> in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
> faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
> rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
> won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
> stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
> be.
> Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
> restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
> between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
> reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
> that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
> time....
> cheers,
> Peter,
> PM.
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Does the chapter have a position on this 
>> proposal<>
>> ?
>> Should it have a position?
>> If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
>> Cheers,
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to