Keith Old wrote:
Of course, there are materials that are illegal to
view in one country
that
are perfectly legal in another. It is probably
illegal to view neutral
accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most
other
countries and would obviously considered as
verifiable material.
However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that
contravene
it. As it is an international agreement, it might
be considered as more
of
an international standard. Such materials should
certainly not be
considered
to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged
to remove it on sight.
This suggestion is over the top. Who makes the decision about whether
some site is illegal? Who verifies that? It's frightening to think
that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind
of decision that would affect us all.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What is over the top about it? We have admins making decisions everyday to
remove copyvios which are in violation of the law. We have people who
remove perceived link spam which isn't problematic legally but we deem
inappropriate to list on our site.
I am talking about links to a cache on the then LS studios article to
material that had allegedly been the subject of an FBI raid. I removed it
and nominated it for deletion. Why would we want to keep these links on our
servers either in an article or on a talk page?
We need to take interests in what is in the best interests of Wikipedia.
Having links to illegal material is clearly, in my view, not in the best
interests of Wikipedia. I attached links to an international protocol so
that it was not based on standards in one country in international law.
Regards
Keith Old