Hi all,<br><br>This is a bit of a &#39;cross post&#39; from here;<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Copyright_.2F_Copyvio_question">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Copyright_.2F_Copyvio_question</a><br>
(and <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22495">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22495</a> )<br><br>where I was raising the question of how Wikimedia deals with deletions, which of course aren&#39;t really full &#39;deletions&#39; in that they&#39;re available to admin.s - my previous post follows;<br>
<br>.....it&#39;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&#39;s illegal, right?<br><br>I&#39;ve had this in the &#39;don&#39;t really care&#39; bucket for ages - but as part of my forays into sexual content on wiki, came across <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brip.jpg" target="_blank">this image</a> (now deleted) which I believe was very (very) close to being an illegal image, because it sexualised a child.<br>
<br>Anyone reading this who&#39;s an admin at commons can view the image - isn&#39;t that a bit wrong?<br><br>The
fact is that wikimedia&#39;s administrators have unfettered (and apparently
un-monitorable) access to a huge, and ever growing body of copyright
infringing work. Doesn&#39;t seem sustainable to me.<br><br>thoughts most welcome,<br><br>cheers,<br><br>Peter,<br>PM.<br>