On 8 Apr 2006 at 10:41, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't actually stop it being child pornography.
So "you know it when you see it"? But people's standards are not necessarily consistent, or objective. Do any of you remember the flap a few years ago when Oklahoma City banned the award-winning film "The Tin Drum" as child porn, and the cops there confiscated all copies of it? This is a movie that the MPAA had rated "R" (mature but not pornographic), and it won an Oscar and a Cannes film festival award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum
On 4/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
So "you know it when you see it"?
To an extent, yes. But it should be pretty damned clear that most people would think of the image as child pornography.
But people's standards are not necessarily consistent, or objective.
No, so you make sure that the majority of people would consider something child pornography.
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Could be made an addition images CSD criterion. This would enable the deletion of child porn without censoring other sexually explicit images.
Cynical
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
So "you know it when you see it"?
To an extent, yes. But it should be pretty damned clear that most people would think of the image as child pornography.
But people's standards are not necessarily consistent, or objective.
No, so you make sure that the majority of people would consider something child pornography.
-- 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 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hadn't thought of that. Posing with any sex toy should definitely be included, but anything else would be a matter of context, which gives us an ambiguous policy and the sort of arguments we have seen over T1 (whoever thought people could violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:DICK in one sentence by arguing over what constitutes 'divisive'?). Don't know how to do it in a way that isn't open to interpretation (and thus, flamewars)
Cynical
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
Sydney
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
-- Sam _______________________________________________ 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
Yeah, that's the balance that any policy change would have to find - banning the teddy bear picture Sam Korn deleted while not affecting the sorts of stuff you mentioned.
Cynical
Sydney Poore wrote:
Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
Sydney
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are pointing to an important problem, mildly suggestive images are used by the mainstream media to say nothing of the obvious fact that it is normal for children to engage in innocent sexual behavior.
I think what we are after is those images (and sites) that cross over a poorly defined line into sexual exploitation of children. I would say that if some of our readers find an image or link objectionable, we should not include it. "Some" being a substantial fraction. We should not be mislead by our own reactions to an image. Having viewed goatse, our perspective is a bit warped.
Fred
On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
Sydney
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sydney Poore
Go Bengals!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses".
Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
You are pointing to an important problem, mildly suggestive images are used by the mainstream media to say nothing of the obvious fact that it is normal for children to engage in innocent sexual behavior.
I think what we are after is those images (and sites) that cross over a poorly defined line into sexual exploitation of children. I would say that if some of our readers find an image or link objectionable, we should not include it. "Some" being a substantial fraction. We should not be mislead by our own reactions to an image. Having viewed goatse, our perspective is a bit warped.
Not just goatse, but autofellatio too...
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
No. That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Cynical
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
No. That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't fit into the narrow bands. It needs to be generally worded, but explicit inclusions are possible. For example:
"Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys."
And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually, but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do)
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that we need it to be broad, but including 'but not limited to' is leaving it open to interpretation - giving us the same problems of CSD T1 /et al/ in that there can be significant confusion as to what is or is not deletable.
Cynical
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't fit into the narrow bands. It needs to be generally worded, but explicit inclusions are possible. For example:
"Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys."
And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually, but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do)
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The image boards with lolicon have images that are clearly inappropriate for display on Wikipedia. Many of them fall outside of that definition. For example, very young children masturbating for sexual gratification. I think Tony is right. If the description is too specific then people will try to game it.
Some of the images are too disgusting to describe here. That is the reason that I don't think we should have external links to them. I don't have a problem with naming the image boards in the article and even giving the site http. But I don't think we should have active links to them. There is a low grade edit dispute about this at Lolicon article now. Sydney
David Alexander Russell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Cynical
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
No. That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game. _______________________________________________ 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 SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEN99rg8fvtQYQevcRApx8AJ9lMyReZBKLlA076Y6L+DVzrLAbWgCggSOP 1UIaI71ZIq0B3MoPMkGtuy4= =BJPL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
Would be covered by '...minors engaged in sexual activity...' - masturbation is a sexual activity (no room for interpretation)
Cynical
Sydney Poore wrote:
Many of them fall outside of that definition. For example, very young children masturbating for sexual gratification. I think Tony is right. If the description is too specific then people will try to game it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Cynical
A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls. Sex toy, or parts of a bearing?
- -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case the image would obviously be sexual)
Cynical
Sean Barrett wrote:
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g. CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Cynical
A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls. Sex toy, or parts of a bearing?
-- 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case the image would obviously be sexual)
Cynical
An article on "Magz," which is a toy based on magnetic sticks and steel balls. The balls are smaller than an inch, but my point is that someone out to game the system can game any standard you set up.
- -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean@epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Well obviously if it is clearly a child's toy, then it would not meet my suggestion ('posing with a _sex_ toy').
Cynical
Sean Barrett wrote:
David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case the image would obviously be sexual)
Cynical
An article on "Magz," which is a toy based on magnetic sticks and steel balls. The balls are smaller than an inch, but my point is that someone out to game the system can game any standard you set up.
-- 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
David Alexander Russell wrote:
Well obviously if it is clearly a child's toy, then it would not meet my suggestion ('posing with a _sex_ toy').
When it comes to that disputed lolicon picture I would not independently have noticed that the teddy bear had an erection. It only became apparent when I was told. How many of us noticed that without being told.
The Danish cartoons that caused the fuss among Muslims could not have been obvious representations of the prophet until somebody said so. Nobody knows what Mohammed really looked like because there were no cameras in the 7th century.
A picture of a child holding a big cigar is not implicitly a representation the child's erotic fantasies about his or her father until somebody says so. As Freud said :"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar"
A good writer or artist can bring out the erotic in situations where you would never imagine it possible. Companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to achieve software security, but the hackers still find their way around the protection.
Ec
David Alexander Russell wrote:
If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case the image would obviously be sexual)
Yes. He's using it as a shooter in a marbles game. An object like that is an all-purpose one that could have many uses. Jumping to the conclusion that it would be used sexually is unwarranted. This is a bit like countries who would ban the export of life-giving medicines to another out of fear that those medicines might be turned into biochemical warfare agents.
Ec
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Let's be stronger: Any image containing: - elements of erotica, - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Steve
Yes, I like that better. It is less specific but a strong statement. Be prepared for the argument that child erotica is different from child porn. I'm having that problem on the Child modeling (erotica) article now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_%28erotic%29 Sydney
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses. Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Your criteria are ridiculous. You know how much perfectly legal anime (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made "illegal" with your broad brush stroke?
Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the age of 18?!
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Ben McIlwain wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Your criteria are ridiculous. You know how much perfectly legal anime (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made "illegal" with your broad brush stroke?
Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the age of 18?!
I agree. We're very rapidly heading towards a slippery slope...
On 4/8/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
Your criteria are ridiculous. You know how much perfectly legal anime (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made "illegal" with your broad brush stroke?
Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the age of 18?!
Don't forget, I'm not trying to draw a moral or legal line here. I'm trying to draw a line for what material we can comfortably defend our inclusion. Obviously 18 is a ludicrous hard limit, but that's the one that most (Americans) believe in.
Steve
On 4/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote: Obviously 18 is a ludicrous hard limit, but that's the one
that most (Americans) believe in.
It's an unnecessary limit. The picture in question depicts someone who is obviously a very young child, and the juxtaposition with a dildo makes the picture explicitly sexual. Depiction of sexuality in teenagers has long been acceptable; the example of Kubrick's Lolita (who in the film is fourteen, somewhat older than Nabokov's Lolita) painting her toenails would be acceptable because, although erotic, it is not sexually explicit and doesn't involve a young child.
On 4/9/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's an unnecessary limit. The picture in question depicts someone who is obviously a very young child, and the juxtaposition with a dildo makes the picture explicitly sexual. Depiction of sexuality in teenagers has long been acceptable; the example of Kubrick's Lolita (who in the film is fourteen, somewhat older than Nabokov's Lolita) painting her toenails would be acceptable because, although erotic, it is not sexually explicit and doesn't involve a young child.
Hmm, good points. I think in that example, the "level" of erotica is much lower, and such an image would be offensive to many less people. Context would probably play a part too.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree, but my suggestion was aimed at creating an objective criterion which could not be 'gamed' (whereas there could be endless arguments about what constitutes 'erotica')
Cynical
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Steve _______________________________________________ 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 8, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
We don't need to make a policy because of this single specific case, because we're not deluged by child pornography. If this case recurs, then we can deal with it the same way we dealt with this one. When mass uploads of child porn take place, then and only then should we develop policy.
On 4/9/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
We don't need to make a policy because of this single specific case, because we're not deluged by child pornography. If this case recurs, then we can deal with it the same way we dealt with this one. When mass uploads of child porn take place, then and only then should we develop policy.
Precisely. This is a case that had been festering for well over a year until someone dealt with it, and now that it's happened nobody seems to be mad keen to restore the picture, so it seems apparent to me that all that was missing was a bit of guts.
We really haven't got a child porn problem, and if at some point we ever should, we could then develop a policy on the basis of a spread of different cases about which we could reach a reasonable agreement.
G'day Steve,
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Hmm. Where does a screenshot from /Lolita/ stand under this criteria?
(Having neither read the book nor seen the movies, I apologise if this question is irrelevant.)
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Steve,
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Hmm. Where does a screenshot from /Lolita/ stand under this criteria?
(Having neither read the book nor seen the movies, I apologise if this question is irrelevant.)
Nabokov was a masterful writer and craftsman, and the movie was also well done. Movies at that time would have been far less likely to be openly sexual than anything produced today. I saw it shortly after it came out, and remember that the background to the titles was a very erotic sequence of Lolita painting her toenails. It was erotic without being sexual. The story is really about one man's obsession, and even the simple fact of it being a black and white film brings that theme out. By all means do both.
Ec
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:47:57 +0100, you wrote:
in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
Alternatively we could ask ourselves who would argue to keep an image which is construed by multiple experienced editors as, in context, apparent paedophile pornography. Guy (JzG)
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 8 Apr 2006 at 10:41, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
Yes, in terms of laws. This image might not fall under child pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't actually stop it being child pornography.
So "you know it when you see it"? But people's standards are not necessarily consistent, or objective. Do any of you remember the flap a few years ago when Oklahoma City banned the award-winning film "The Tin Drum" as child porn, and the cops there confiscated all copies of it? This is a movie that the MPAA had rated "R" (mature but not pornographic), and it won an Oscar and a Cannes film festival award.
There was a time when having a book "Banned in Boston" (Ulysses, Lady Chatterley's Lover) would be a great way to increase sales. :-)
Ec