Hi all,
This is a bit of a 'cross post' from here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Copyrig…
(and
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22495 )
where I was raising the question of how Wikimedia deals with deletions,
which of course aren't really full 'deletions' in that they're available
to
admin.s - my previous post follows;
.....it's illegal to break copyright, right? - and if an article, or image
on a wikimedia foundation project breaks copyright then it gets deleted. I
just wonder how the copyright owner feels about the article / image still
being available to over a thousand (and growing) number of unidentified
people - that's illegal, right?
I've had this in the 'don't really care' bucket for ages - but as part of
my
forays into sexual content on wiki, came across this
image<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brip.jpg>(now deleted)
which I believe was very (very) close to being an illegal
image, because it sexualised a child.
Anyone reading this who's an admin at commons can view the image - isn't
that a bit wrong?
The fact is that wikimedia's administrators have unfettered (and apparently
un-monitorable) access to a huge, and ever growing body of copyright
infringing work. Doesn't seem sustainable to me.
thoughts most welcome,
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
