Hi all,

This is a bit of a 'cross post' from here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Copyrigh... (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 imagehttp://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.