Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
Mmmmm... interesting case. In my view, sources have to be verifiable for someone, i.e. at least some wikipedians need to be able to check verifiability. So perhaps sources that are illegal everywhere should not be allowed? (This, of course, causes severe practical problems. If it is illegal for, say, most citizens of English speaking countries to check something, it is difficult to argue there *is* verifiability. Moreover, how would we know something is illegal everywhere?). Nonetheless, I don't think the laws of Florida should apply, if users in, say, Australia can check a source legally, I see now verifiability problem even if US users cannot.
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
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.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
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.
Regards
Keith Old
Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
Keith Old wrote:
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
That was my argument for LS Studio article.
Sydney aka FloNight
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
I would say so. I've seen this a couple of times, when someone makes a claim, then provides a link that they believe justifies the claim. However the link is a primary source, and it is their interpretation which they believe makes it "proof". Whereas, a secondary source is usually much more straightforward.
An example was in the Safe Speed article. There were claims along the lines of "This isn't actually true, Johnson and Thomas proved in 1984 that the speed of a vehicle blah blah...[1]". Whereas IMHO you really need to cite a direct refutation of the claim, "Smith and Jackson challenged this claim [2], citing numerous studies including Johnson and Thomas (1984)".
In other words, any situation that would lead you to visit a website to verify some claim is already shakey ground. Beyond checking whether a specific sentence is readily visible on the site, I'm not sure what could be gained that wouldn't be straying into OR.
Steve
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
There is (or at least should be) a difference between Original Research and extensive, in-depth research.
Some articles require sources more difficult to obtain than simply googling the Web.
- -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
Cynical
Sean Barrett wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
There is (or at least should be) a difference between Original Research and extensive, in-depth research.
Some articles require sources more difficult to obtain than simply googling the Web.
-- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
But... it doesn't pass WP:V because it has not been published in a reliable source.
-- Sam
On 07/04/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
But... it doesn't pass WP:V because it has not been published in a reliable source.
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, then, it would.
-- Sam
(oops, sent to Sam not the list)
On 07/04/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, then, it would.
It's a big thing now.
Bear in mind that the author, the FBI or whoever, is inherently a citable source - they're the government. All you need to do is make sure that the material is available to people who aren't you; indeed, I'd argue that hosting it on your own website is fine as long as it's not in serious doubt the original publisher was the FBI. (and copyright permits)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Perhaps it could even be put on Wikisource (works of US Federal Govt. employees in the course of their official duties are ineligible for copyright afaik, per the tags on zillions of NASA images!)
Cynical
Andrew Gray wrote:
(oops, sent to Sam not the list)
On 07/04/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, then, it would.
It's a big thing now.
Bear in mind that the author, the FBI or whoever, is inherently a citable source - they're the government. All you need to do is make sure that the material is available to people who aren't you; indeed, I'd argue that hosting it on your own website is fine as long as it's not in serious doubt the original publisher was the FBI. (and copyright permits)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Based on my experience in WebEx arb comm case, I think government records can be cited but must be used with great caution. Often they contain information that mainstream media outlets do not publish. Names of minors, rape victims, personal information. The typed of stuff that Smoking Gun redacts.
Must have editors willing to put in a whole lot of time. Court records, FBI files, SEC ruling and such are long and boring. Filled with technical jargon that is above the reading level of the average newspaper. They can be misunderstood or misrepresented.
If those issues are recognized, I think a group of editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy can use them in limited ways.
Sydney
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, then, it would.
-- Sam
This material has been used before in Wikipedia. Especially the Venona decrypts.
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 07/04/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
But... it doesn't pass WP:V because it has not been published in a reliable source.
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
But... it doesn't pass WP:V because it has not been published in a reliable source.
The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source?
I don't think they put "most", but "a significant amount of material with wide public and historic interest" is put online by the FBI. But the FOIA also allows one to, for instance, request their own FBI file and submit corrections. For the most part, this is private information that won't be published publicly.
The FOIA requires one to specifically request the information in question. Information that is just released by the government separate from specific requests for that information falls outside FOIA.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
OK, didn't realise it actually had to be published. Although if the FBI were forced to release information about an investigation of this type then I guess some sort of media organisation would pick up on it anyway.
Cynical
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source.
But... it doesn't pass WP:V because it has not been published in a reliable source.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/7/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
There is (or at least should be) a difference between Original Research and extensive, in-depth research.
Some articles require sources more difficult to obtain than simply googling the Web.
The impression I got was that the issue that required looking at the images was a description of the "quality" and nature of the material. To judge the quality of the material is OR. To describe the nature of the material is technically OR as well, but in my opinion to that that "the picture was taken against such-and-such a background" is one of those places where OR is less of a problem. Of course, if a description of the images is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article, then one would hope that someone else has described them...
On 4/7/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?
There is (or at least should be) a difference between Original Research and extensive, in-depth research.
True, but when one relies heavily on *primary* sources it's almost impossible to avoid doing Original Research.
Jay.
The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities ought to be prohibited:
(c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography as defined in article 2.
Article 2:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it.
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Keith Old wrote:
I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
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.
Regards
Keith Old
I think if you went to the website specifically with the intention of viewing this material, you would be in an iffy position with regards to "posessing". If it's in your browser cache, do you not "possess" it?
Steve
On 4/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities ought to be prohibited:
(c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography as defined in article 2.
Article 2:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it.
Fred
Definitely, and if you regularly search on Google for it....
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I think if you went to the website specifically with the intention of viewing this material, you would be in an iffy position with regards to "posessing". If it's in your browser cache, do you not "possess" it?
Steve
On 4/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities ought to be prohibited:
(c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography as defined in article 2.
Article 2:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think if you went to the website specifically with the intention of viewing this material, you would be in an iffy position with regards to "posessing". If it's in your browser cache, do you not "possess" it?
If you were hit with a pop-up that was saved without your knowledge you would still be guilty of possessing it. At that rate when you are charged, maybe Microsoft should be made a co-defendant.
Ec
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
On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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@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
Keith Old wrote:
On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
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.
It's easy enough to establish at least o strong prima facie case that something is a copyvio by simply comparing the material on Wikipedia and the other site. Link spam is an annoyance that's obvious in it's own right. I can't comment on the specific site that you mention regardiong the FBI raid; I haven't seen it.
A simple reference to the protocol is not enough to determine what would be illegal within its terms. What's over the top is leaving it to specific individuals to decide that something is illegal over a broad range of different laws in different places, not just kiddie-porn. What worries me is people who arrogate upon themselves ondividually the right to decide what is in the interests of Wikipedia.
Ec
Verification (for Wikipedia purposes) involves verification that the information was published in a reliable source. It does not require verification in the various other senses which might require actual proof of the matter.
Thus we can truthfully say that it was reported in the New York Times or by BBC (or some other source generally considered reliable) that something occurred. We do not need to do original research to confirm it.
In the matter of child pornography there is no need to view the pictures to fulfill Wikipedia verification. One can imagine some sort of classified, obscene or extraordinarily inflammatory document which might be illegal, but generally such information cannot be considered a reliable published source. Classified documents are by their nature not published. Obscene or inflammatory documents are subject to suppression and thus not generally circulated.
It all goes back to the nature of an encyclopedia, a summary of generally accepted knowledge. That leaves plenty of room for projects which move beyond generally accepted knowledge but those are other projects.
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
Hi Stephen, the article should cite third-party sources about the contents of the material. If Wikipedians have to look at the material themselves, that constitutes original research, because it would involve them relying on their own interpretations of it. If there are no third-party descriptions, then the material shouldn't be described in our article about it.
Sarah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
There are presumably objective pieces of information in such reports that do not require interpretation before they can be used - for example if an FBI report into a child porn ring stated the X people were involved in the porn ring, Y number of children were abused, Z million dollars were involved, then there is surely no original research involved in using that information in a Wikipedia article about the child porn ring and citing the FBI report?
Cynical
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
Hi Stephen, the article should cite third-party sources about the contents of the material. If Wikipedians have to look at the material themselves, that constitutes original research, because it would involve them relying on their own interpretations of it. If there are no third-party descriptions, then the material shouldn't be described in our article about it.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think there might be two issues here -- that of the legality of the contributor and the legality of Wikipedia's hosting of the content.
If I were somebody with access to U.S. military secrets and I posted them to Wikipedia, I would certainly be *personally* legally accountable for having them up. Because Wikipedia is in the U.S., it too would probably be legally accountable as well under U.S. classification laws. But what if they were, say, Iranian military secrets? The contributor, if they were Iranian, would probably be personally accountable still. But since it is unlikely that Iranian classification laws apply to entities in the U.S., there would be no legal issue for Wikipedia to have them up (unless they in some way fell under U.S. law, which a few categories of information still would).
(The WP:V question is different entirely, of course.)
FF
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids.
The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my perspective, the article is unverifiable.
I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to verify articles. But the question is where should the line of definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions. Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I am sure the laws are even stricter.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fastfission stated for the record:
If I were somebody with access to U.S. military secrets and I posted them to Wikipedia, I would certainly be *personally* legally accountable for having them up. Because Wikipedia is in the U.S., it too would probably be legally accountable as well under U.S. classification laws. But what if they were, say, Iranian military secrets? The contributor, if they were Iranian, would probably be personally accountable still. But since it is unlikely that Iranian classification laws apply to entities in the U.S., there would be no legal issue for Wikipedia to have them up (unless they in some way fell under U.S. law, which a few categories of information still would).
(The WP:V question is different entirely, of course.)
Except that the WP:V question is the crux of the matter! Those Iranian military secrets would either be entirely unverifiable, and thus un-Wiki-able, or they would be verifiable, and so not secret.
I just went through this loop a few times personally -- I posted details about the [[S8G reactor]] plant back in the days before WP:V was enforced. Recently, a newbie popped up and accused me of endangering the lives of his shipmates and threatening to have me arrested. Hilarity ensued, until I added the sources I had omitted earlier. Obviously a secret widely available on the Web (including, as I recall, a Russian Web site) is not much of a secret.
- -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
On 4/8/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Except that the WP:V question is the crux of the matter! Those Iranian military secrets would either be entirely unverifiable, and thus un-Wiki-able, or they would be verifiable, and so not secret.
"Secret" does not in a legal context mean "unknown," it means "designated as information which publishing or otherwise passing to other people or countries is against the law." Hence the legal question of whether WP should publish them and a clear analog to the other questions here: if textual content illegal in the U.S. is posted on a foreign website, can we post it on Wikipedia? If it is truly known to be illegal in the U.S. (it is only in rare cases that the U.S. "confirms" that a secret has been released), then the answer is clearly no, we shouldn't. If it is illegal in other countries, it becomes a more complicated issue (esp. for WP reps in those countries, I imagine) but not necessarily as pressing of one.
As for WP:V, people have discussed it well enough already here so I didn't feel the need to comment on that specific point, but just to mention what seemed to me to be the legal approach to it, which has to do with jurisdictions more than anything else.
I just went through this loop a few times personally -- I posted details about the [[S8G reactor]] plant back in the days before WP:V was enforced. Recently, a newbie popped up and accused me of endangering the lives of his shipmates and threatening to have me arrested. Hilarity ensued, until I added the sources I had omitted earlier. Obviously a secret widely available on the Web (including, as I recall, a Russian Web site) is not much of a secret.
Whether it is posted elsewhere does not mean it does not have a safe legal status in the U.S. at all, as I understand it. There are some categories of information that even if derived from entirely open sources can still technically count as legally secret under U.S. laws (see our WP article on [[born secret]]), though legal enforcement has been rare and is constitutionally ambiguous, but are part of laws which are still on the books and which the government has never implied they would not try to enforce. Of course, without direct legal confrontation from a government source in question we should not be worried about this and certainly not be pre-emptively paranoid about it, but it is not a legally irrelevant issue.
FF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fastfission stated for the record:
<snip a bunch>
Whether it is posted elsewhere does not mean it does not have a safe legal status in the U.S. at all, as I understand it. There are some categories of information that even if derived from entirely open sources can still technically count as legally secret under U.S. laws (see our WP article on [[born secret]]), though legal enforcement has been rare and is constitutionally ambiguous, but are part of laws which are still on the books and which the government has never implied they would not try to enforce. Of course, without direct legal confrontation from a government source in question we should not be worried about this and certainly not be pre-emptively paranoid about it, but it is not a legally irrelevant issue.
FF
Everything you say is true in a legal sense. In a practical sense, the chances that information that is widely available across the Web is [[born secret]] is so vanishingly small, and the chances that anyone will actually face any sort of repercussions from republishing that information are so infinitesimal that my thumbrule (classified is not verifiable, and verifiable is not classified) is only epsilon short of axiomatic truth.
- -- Sean Barrett | There's very little advice in men's magazines, sean@epoptic.org | because men think, "I know what I'm doing. | Just show me somebody naked!" --Jerry Seinfeld
On 4/10/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Everything you say is true in a legal sense. In a practical sense, the chances that information that is widely available across the Web is [[born secret]] is so vanishingly small, and the chances that anyone will actually face any sort of repercussions from republishing that information are so infinitesimal that my thumbrule (classified is not verifiable, and verifiable is not classified) is only epsilon short of axiomatic truth.
The question isn't whether the information would fall under the born secret clause (in fact, huge categories of information are under it automatically), but whether it would be prosecuted. And in this I agree completely that it is absurdly unlikely, and something not to worry about unless it comes up in a direct legal confrontation.
FF