I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
1) It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
2) The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- Sam
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
You probably will get a lot of crap on you over this. But, for what it's worth :), you got my support.
Garion
It is reasonable and I will support you. The image has not been used correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and the image deletion page.
Sydney aka FloNight
Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty, Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder over its deletion.
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
It is reasonable and I will support you. The image has not been used correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and the image deletion page.
Sydney aka FloNight
Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- 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
I now I'm home I checked the article and noticed a free image was put in its place. Forget what I said in that last mail. I should've checked first.
Mgm
On 4/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty, Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder over its deletion.
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
It is reasonable and I will support you. The image has not been used correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and the image deletion page.
Sydney aka FloNight
Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- 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
That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will. The most vehement cries have been of censorship, and deleting a "more offensive" image for a "less offensive" image is not going to make the hounds bay any softer.
$.02, k
On 4/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If a free image is substituted instead of having the space sit empty, Sam will have my support. Having at least "an" image on there will dampen the spirits of those who want to yell and scream bloody murder over its deletion.
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
It is reasonable and I will support you. The image has not been used correctly on the article. No text describing the image. And a free image should be used. I've written this multiple times on the article talk and the image deletion page.
Sydney aka FloNight
Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- 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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Katefan0,
That's a nice thought, but I doubt it will. The most vehement cries have been of censorship, and deleting a "more offensive" image for a "less offensive" image is not going to make the hounds bay any softer.
I haven't checked (I saw the Lolicon article once and it quite cured my curiosity), but I'd bet that the set of people complaining about "censorship" includes more than just rock spiders.
It's kinda sweet that there's people out there so concerned about basic American freedoms (on an international project, but never mind) that they'll stand up and fight for the right of sickos to look at kiddie porn. Actually, "sweet" probably isn't the word I'm looking for ...
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ 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
Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about this matter.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
iD8DBQFEMXqEg8fvtQYQevcRAvv1AKCM+9ful+o8jzxFkh1NMBqStN/15ACfS6Z+ wsmC4bmlPWaWBiEzi+ONkfA= =2xcW -----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
Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether because it's not "informative."
To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more aesthetic.
k
On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about this matter.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
this
image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and
absolutely
necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
iD8DBQFEMXqEg8fvtQYQevcRAvv1AKCM+9ful+o8jzxFkh1NMBqStN/15ACfS6Z+ wsmC4bmlPWaWBiEzi+ONkfA= =2xcW -----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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The deleted image has been added as an external link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391
Sydney aka FloNight
Katefan0 wrote:
Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether because it's not "informative."
To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more aesthetic.
k
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
The deleted image has been added as an external link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=46804578&oldid=46796391
Sydney aka FloNight
Katefan0 wrote:
Yes. Some folks are beginning to remove the magazine photo altogether because it's not "informative."
To me, a picture is better than no picture. Makes the article more aesthetic.
k
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Surely we have an article that describes the difference...
Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.
Cynical
Death Phoenix wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about this matter.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote: Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and you have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, but if I were to look at a hentai picture, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a lolicon picture. I don't want to go up to a police officer with either picture and see if I get arrested to find out which is which.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.
Cynical
Death Phoenix wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
Being
a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
but
some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
about
this matter.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk
wrote:
Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and
you
have my support.
On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote: > The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
this
> image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of > controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and > process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and
absolutely
> necessary. Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
iD4DBQFEMX1eg8fvtQYQevcRAviqAJiQ7P4XZ8ExxpwlPEyBzM3UdGyWAJ9sGK/K Cns0X1iybQq8rY3mbDSVqg== =Xa2U -----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
Child porn features images of people who are unquestionably underage in sexual situations. The montage picture (haven't seen it, being from Scotland I have the same legal problems with viewing these as Sam Korn) of a rack of hentai magazines would more than likely not do that, and would therefore be legal (or, at least, [remembering I'm not a lawyer] less illegal than the 'teddy bear' image)
Cynical
Death Phoenix wrote:
Yes, but if I were to look at a hentai picture, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a lolicon picture. I don't want to go up to a police officer with either picture and see if I get arrested to find out which is which.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote: Pictures of hentai magazines are not illegal in every country from which people contribute to Wikipedia, depictions of child pornography are.
Cynical
Death Phoenix wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
Being
a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
but
some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
about
this matter.
On 4/3/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk
wrote:
Let me repeat one thing - deleting this would NOT be outside policy or out-of-process. If the image is replaced with the free image (the japanese comic montage multiple people have mentioned) - which it SHOULD be, since the free image is more informative - then it can be deleted under existing Images/Media speedy deletion criterion #5 'Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article'.
Entirely in-process, entirely within policy, and this coming from a self-confessed 'process wonk'.
Cynical
Mikkerpikker wrote:
> I'll repeat what I said at WP:AN/I, well done Sam. Brave move, and
you
> have my support. > > On 4/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote: >> On 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote: >>> The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing
this
>>> image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of >>> controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and >>> process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and
absolutely
>>> necessary. >> Agreed. Let the accusations of cabalism begin. >> >> Ryan >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon. Being a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two, but some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated) about this matter.
Far as I know, lolicon is hentai starring young children.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 4/3/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Looks to be potential edit warring arguing for the free image's removal because some of the magazines appear to be hentai instead of lolicon.
Being
a fan of neither, I have no idea what the difference is between the two,
but
some of the editors seem to be quite knowledgeable (and opinionated)
about
this matter.
Far as I know, lolicon is hentai starring young children.
If that's the case, if there is an image of stack of comics featuring both hentai and lolicon, I don't think it needs to be removed simply because it contains hentai (though to be fair, some of the folks arguing for its removal are also saying that the image is too small, etc.)
It looks like we have a multi-way edit war in the article over:
* Whether to have any image in the article * What image to use if we do * How big should it be * Whether there should be an external link to the deleted image and * A bunch of other crap that I can't be arsed to investigate right now, suffice to say that some people are taking it seriously.
Do we need to reprotect this article?
Ryan
I fully support this deletion. It is occasional lapses like this, which while arguably "legal", give some substance to the bogus claim that Wikipedia panders to pedophiles.
Fred
On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- 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 Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
Me, I'm at RFAr today, because I said that non-trivial verifiable information would be welcome in an article, and you can't get more inflammatory than that, can you? Guy (JzG)
On 4/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
No kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn
On 4/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
No kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn
Ha. Ah-hahaha. HAHAAHAAAHAHAH.
*wipes tear from eye* Okay, everyone pile on Sam's statement now, if you please.
Ryan
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there. The key to my approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it. In this case, we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing our open processes.
If people still want to set up some sort of discussion/advocacy/argument/poll for re-including this image, they are free to do so. But we do not have to put up with it in the meantime.
--Jimbo
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:18:10 +0100, you wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
Straight to RfC with you and no stopping off on the way :-)
No kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Korn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there. The key to my approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it. In this case, we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing our open processes.
I don't agree with their arguments (I am glad the image is gone), but I don't think the ones wanting to keep the picture were pedophiles. They had other reasons for wanting to keep the image.
Garion96
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there. The key to my approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it. In this case, we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing our open processes.
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Now that we're on this topic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png
Doesn't the teddy bear in that picture look a bit odd and out of place? :) (I'm not suggesting deletion, just maybe getting the bear out of the picture.)
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Now that we're on this topic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png
Doesn't the teddy bear in that picture look a bit odd and out of place? :) (I'm not suggesting deletion, just maybe getting the bear out of the picture.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAME#Pictures
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We need to be aware and responsible.
Fred
On Apr 4, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there. The key to my approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it. In this case, we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing our open processes.
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEMrnAvCEYTv+mBWcRAuV7AKCK05AbFQVOAp17n09iGkKR00lVbACcC8ew hjziHxhaaEU2xBXm0SQMEXk= =uARf -----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
On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We need to be aware and responsible.
The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is... disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.
Ryan
Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced, neutral editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
k
On 4/4/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It's not a matter of being a "pedophile". I find the image interesting and appealing (even humorous). However I am well aware that it is not wise to share this perspective with a 12 year old girl. It is fundamental reality that a substantial part of our readership is in the junior high school range. I know from my own experience that I seldom consulted an encyclopedia after I was about 13. There is a saying, "You take your victim as you find them" We need to be aware and responsible.
The thought of pedophiles using Wikipedia for mass grooming is... disturbing, to say the least. I don't think we need to be set off into a mass panic or a witch-hunt, but it does give me that "brrrr" sensation.
Ryan _______________________________________________ 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
Katefan0 wrote:
Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced, neutral editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming; that was someone else. What I said is that there are people with agendas on Wikipedia. By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most flattering, least-critical light possible. And neutral editors would be most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of articles.
k
On 4/4/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Katefan0 wrote:
Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon
debate
were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced,
neutral
editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEMvG9vCEYTv+mBWcRAmhWAJ97ueRNODUHI4LYOpMBrmLYFieaBgCfdVue wCRY4Um+R4T3fS7jtCPC5oQ= =wjg4 -----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
Katefan0 wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming; that was someone else. What I said is that there are people with agendas on Wikipedia. By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most flattering, least-critical light possible. And neutral editors would be most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of articles.
Can you point out some specific people with these agendas? Because I'm just not seeing it. And I have been getting involved (and I'm decidedly anti-pedophilia), but my thanks was an accusation of being a "pedophile troll". Gahhhrrr.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
I'd rather not name any names over an open listserv; no need to needlessly antagonize. But if you'd like to have a private conversation, I'd be glad to.
k
On 4/4/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Katefan0 wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
I never said anybody is trying to coopt Wikipedia for mass grooming;
that
was someone else. What I said is that there are people with agendas on Wikipedia. By that I mean painting the "childlove movement" in the most flattering, least-critical light possible. And neutral editors would be most welcome to participate in the current wars on these types of
articles.
Can you point out some specific people with these agendas? Because I'm just not seeing it. And I have been getting involved (and I'm decidedly anti-pedophilia), but my thanks was an accusation of being a "pedophile troll". Gahhhrrr.
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEMvcpvCEYTv+mBWcRAnzwAJ9vMcJYoFiRIWg3Xcr05sQYP9l5PwCfQ2Lx 3qj2vNqpNIncU5jiXO0RDs4= =gxGC -----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
G'day Ben,
Katefan0 wrote:
Beyond this image, there are lots of problems with pedophilia-related articles.
I don't think that most of the censorship stalwarts in the Lolicon debate were pedophiles, but it's certain that there are pedophiles fighting for certain things to be included in articles like [[NAMBLA]], [[Childlove movement]], [[Curley v. NAMBLA]], etc. An infusion of experienced, neutral editors into fights over articles like these would be appreciated.
I feel like we're repeating the McCarthy era, only instead of Communists, this time it's pedophiles. Where exactly are these alleged
I assume you're American. Only an American (or a very radical non-) could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.
Why is it, anyway, that you're upset at what Katefan0 had to say? It is a fact that paedophiles have POV-pushed on certain articles (such as the three she pointed out above). This doesn't mean you're a dupe for standing up for them in relation to a different article, so you have no need to be offended by Katefan0.
Er, that is to say, *I* think you're a silly sausage, but Katefan0 never even implied it, so get off her back, sort of thing.
pedophiles? I've heard a lot of accusations of pedophilia being thrown about (even by Jimbo, which is most unfortunate), but I haven't really seen any actual evidence of pedophilia, just people pointing at the anti-censorship types and yelling "PEDOPHILES!!" Do you have any
Now, now. Some of us have been pointing to the anti-censorship types and saying "why the hell are you in league with the paedophiles?" which is, I'm sure you'll agree, not nearly so bad ...
As for who the paedophiles on Wikipedia is ... have you *read* the articles Katefan0 points out? There's a number of self-declared paedophiles on Wikipedia, who (surprise, surprise) spend a lot of their time editing articles about sickos to say "we're not sickos really, it's the government that's sick!". Granted, there's not as many paedos as, say, Communists (tee hee), but then Commies who go out of their way to POV-push ("we're not sickos really, it's the Capitalists who're sick!") tend to wind up before ArbCom, in my experience.
The only example of an open paedophile editing Wikipedia who springs to mind is User:Silent War, but he's far from being the only one. There *are* paedophiles on Wikipedia, they *do* POV-push, and you've got no need to deny it simply because you're involved in a debate unrelated to Childlove movement or any of the other articles mentioned.
specific evidence of pedophiles trying to co-opt Wikipedia for "mass grooming" or whatever?
I don't have any evidence, and neither does anyone else ... fortunately, nobody here has actually tried to assert that this is happening (see also: silly sausages). It's a bloody scary thought, though, innit?
On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
I assume you're American. Only an American (or a very radical non-) could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
I assume you're American. Only an American (or a very radical non-) could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
Well, capitalists have as well, and I'm betting money on some paedophiles being capitalists /*duck*
Drini drini wrote:
On 4/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
I assume you're American. Only an American (or a very radical non-) could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
Philip L. Welch
Well, capitalists have as well, and I'm betting money on some paedophiles being capitalists /*duck*
Why should you have to duck when someone else has made such an extraordinarily stupid straw man statement.
Ec
On 4/5/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why should you have to duck when someone else has made such an extraordinarily stupid straw man statement.
Again, I really think we have better things to do than sit on the mailing list exchanging these jabs.
Ryan
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
Well, capitalists have as well, and I'm betting money on some paedophiles being capitalists /*duck*
Why should you have to duck when someone else has made such an extraordinarily stupid straw man statement.
Not to belabor this meta-debate, but it's a simple matter of historical fact that communists have committed large-scale mass murder. Tacit implications that communism is "okay" is as offensive to many people as implying that fascism is "okay". Since neither question is of direct relevance here, let's just agree, for the sake of avoiding conflict, not to say nice things about controversial political ideologies.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
Well, capitalists have as well, and I'm betting money on some paedophiles being capitalists /*duck*
Why should you have to duck when someone else has made such an extraordinarily stupid straw man statement.
Not to belabor this meta-debate, but it's a simple matter of historical fact that communists have committed large-scale mass murder. Tacit implications that communism is "okay" is as offensive to many people as implying that fascism is "okay". Since neither question is of direct relevance here, let's just agree, for the sake of avoiding conflict, not to say nice things about controversial political ideologies.
But I was not the one to introduce communism into the discussion with an offensive comment. Now, in a pretence of innocence, you admonish those who would say "nice" things about controversial political ideologies, but do not apply the same standards to those who wouild say offensive thingsa about the same ideologies. Then you want to drop the issue when you feel that you are ahead in the damage. The historical fact that some communists have committed large-scale mass murder does not justify your innuendo that all supporters of a communistic economy have done so.
To whatever extent I feel that communism may be "okay" I can express myself directly; I don't need to rely on tacit offensive implications. I know that this site abounds with anti-communist ideologues, and I can keep busy enough in unrelated areas without needing to actively promote ideologies. Be that as it may, I won't be bullied, and I feel quite justified in rising to the occasion when someone trolls the list with an ignorant comment.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip flamewar>
Can we kindly bring discussion back on topic? The image has been deleted. If you have anything to say about it, do so. Otherwise, can we *please* close this thread?
On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Not to belabor this meta-debate, but it's a simple matter of historical fact that communists have committed large-scale mass murder. Tacit implications that communism is "okay" is as offensive to many people as implying that fascism is "okay". Since neither question is of direct relevance here, let's just agree, for the sake of avoiding conflict, not to say nice things about controversial political ideologies.
But I was not the one to introduce communism into the discussion with an offensive comment.
Nor was I.
Now, in a pretence of innocence, you admonish those who would say "nice" things about controversial political ideologies, but do not apply the same standards to those who wouild say offensive thingsa about the same ideologies.
Ideally we should drop the subject entirely.
Then you want to drop the issue when you feel that you are ahead in the damage. The historical fact that some communists have committed large-scale mass murder does not justify your innuendo that all supporters of a communistic economy have done so.
We could say the same thing about fascism, but you don't find anyone playing apologist for *that* ideology.
To whatever extent I feel that communism may be "okay" I can express myself directly; I don't need to rely on tacit offensive implications. I know that this site abounds with anti-communist ideologues, and I can keep busy enough in unrelated areas without needing to actively promote ideologies. Be that as it may, I won't be bullied, and I feel quite justified in rising to the occasion when someone trolls the list with an ignorant comment.
As do I.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Now, in a pretence of innocence, you admonish those who would say "nice" things about controversial political ideologies, but do not apply the same standards to those who wouild say offensive things about the same ideologies.
Ideally we should drop the subject entirely.
Yes, I can drop it. I'm not interested in pursuing this ad nauseam.
Then you want to drop the issue when you feel that you are ahead in the damage. The historical fact that some communists have committed large-scale mass murder does not justify your innuendo that all supporters of a communistic economy have done so.
We could say the same thing about fascism, but you don't find anyone playing apologist for *that* ideology.
Yes, we could say the same thing about some fascist regimes, and someone thus interested would have been perfectly justified in raising such a defence once that term was secondarily introduced.
It's perfectly obvious to absolutely everyone that no-one was being an apologist in this thread by setting the record straight.
Ec
On 5 Apr 2006, at 00:56, Philip Welch wrote:
I wasn't aware that Americans were unique in thinking pedophiles were morally comparable to communists, although to be perfectly fair, pedophiles have never committed acts of genocide.
Now I really dont want to join into this but.
We were talking UnAmerican Activities I think as to the view of communists.
Rather than the actual behaviour of actual Russian communists.
It is not necessarily a reasonable comparison...
Justinc
On Apr 4, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
Now I really dont want to join into this but.
We were talking UnAmerican Activities I think as to the view of communists.
Rather than the actual behaviour of actual Russian communists.
It is not necessarily a reasonable comparison...
Right. I guess a more meaningful response is to say that we're not comparing the pedophiles directly to communists, but rather the remarks about pedophiles to similar anti-communist activity in the 1950's.
Long story made short, in the 1950's, certain Congressmen decided that communists had infiltrated American government, the American entertainment industry, and other important parts of American society. At the time this was considered a bad thing, as the United States was in the midst of the Cold War against all the communist countries, most notably Soviet Russia. You might remember Soviet Russia from those stupid Yakov Smirnoff jokes everyone keeps repeating on Slashdot...
Long story made short, no vast conspiracy was ever uncovered, and a lot of people were harassed and had their lives ruined for, most believe, no good reason. So McCarthyism (named after McCarthy, one of the guys who started this whole hunt for communists) has gone down in history as a bad thing. (1)
At the time, McCarthyism was compared to the old witch hunts that used to take place in old Europe and early colonial America, because witch hunts similarly disrupted society in order to chase after an imaginary threat. This point was perhaps best made by Arthur Miller, whose play "The Crucible" portrayed the witch hunts during the McCarthy era, leading many to draw the comparison.
I think the argument is that in worrying about pedophiles, we're disrupting Wikipedia's operations just to chase down some imaginary threat. There's a fear that suspected pedophiles (or even actual pedophiles (2)) will be harassed needlessly for no useful end, severely damaging Wikipedia's social fabric.
1. Some people are apologists for McCarthyism, believing that communist infiltration was enough of a threat to justify this. Since the fall of Soviet Russia, declassified information proves that the Soviets did try to infiltrate American society in order to subvert it towards communism. Needless to say, they failed for reasons largely unrelated to the congressional hearings. 2. Similarly, some of the victims of McCarthyism were, in fact, communists. This does not justify, in many people's eyes, the harassment and disruption of their lives that occurred. It is a matter of record that there are some self-declared pedophiles who contribute to Wikipedia.
I don't think we have banned or even considered banning any "pedophile" from Wikipedia, at least not in formal proceedings. We have just deleted a pornographic image. Most of us are familiar with the viewpoint that almost anything ought to be included and have never assumed that taking that position implied that the user was attached to any particular piece of mischief, although investigation often show that they are.
I suppose, however, that we would ban someone who insisted on point of view editing taking a positive view of pedophilia.
Fred
On Apr 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Philip Welch wrote:
I think the argument is that in worrying about pedophiles, we're disrupting Wikipedia's operations just to chase down some imaginary threat. There's a fear that suspected pedophiles (or even actual pedophiles (2)) will be harassed needlessly for no useful end, severely damaging Wikipedia's social fabric.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher stated for the record:
I assume you're American. Only an American (or a very radical non-) could consider a comparison of Communists and paedophiles to be appropriate.
Got that right. There's at least six orders of magnitude difference in the number of murders committed by those two forms of evil.
- -- Sean Barrett | Honk if you hate peace and quiet. sean@epoptic.org |
On 4/5/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Got that right. There's at least six orders of magnitude difference in the number of murders committed by those two forms of evil.
Is today April Troll's day? What's going on?
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I agree that 'pedophile' might have been a bit strong. Perhaps 'people who believe that Wikipedia has a duty to provide pedophiles with child porn regardless of the law' would be a more accurate, objective description.
Cynical
Ben McIlwain wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I posted a statement of strong support for Sam there. The key to my approach to this is to distinguish between (a) where we should draw the line and (b) what to do while we are thinking about it. In this case, we have been trolled by pedophiles creating facts on the ground, abusing our open processes.
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
-- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Cynical wrote:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
I agree that 'pedophile' might have been a bit strong. Perhaps 'people who believe that Wikipedia has a duty to provide pedophiles with child porn regardless of the law' would be a more accurate, objective description.
\I don't think your description is particularly fair or objective. I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
-- Matt
On 4/5/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
\I don't think your description is particularly fair or objective. I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
I think this meta-debate is not doing anything constructive. It's pretty clear that the image is staying deleted at this point. Arguing about who said what to whom isn't going to accomplish anything for us besides toxifying the evironment even further. I think it's time we walked away from this one.
Ryan
I think this meta-debate is not doing anything constructive. It's pretty clear that the image is staying deleted at this point. Arguing about who said what to whom isn't going to accomplish anything for us besides toxifying the evironment even further. I think it's time we walked away from this one.
Something I feel have been missed is Sam Korn's original assertion that "[The image deletion] process is demonstrably broken" because this image was not deleted by it. I believe the process is not broken at all, but that Sam's approach to it was wrong. If he had stuck with the 100% demonstrably true facts; 1. the image is not free, 2. there is a free replacement, then I believe the image could have been deleted without much fuss. But when you use emotional arguments ("This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia..."), expect a filibuster.
-- mvh Björn
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Something I feel have been missed is Sam Korn's original assertion that "[The image deletion] process is demonstrably broken" because this image was not deleted by it. I believe the process is not broken at all, but that Sam's approach to it was wrong. If he had stuck with the 100% demonstrably true facts; 1. the image is not free, 2. there is a free replacement, then I believe the image could have been deleted without much fuss. But when you use emotional arguments ("This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia..."), expect a filibuster.
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
Steve
On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of producing pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn. Process isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host child porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.
Ryan
The most common argument against your point - child pornography is illegal because real child are harmed while making it. Most Western nations allow drawings of child porn but disallow photographs for this reason.
I think all drawing that depict adults having sex with children or children engaged in age inappropriate sex acts should be banned from Wikipedia. My reasoning is that it depicts and condones the sexual exploitation of children. These drawing shock the consciousness of people that are otherwise strong free speech advocates. Sydney
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of producing pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn. Process isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host child porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.
Ryan
On 4/7/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
I think all drawing that depict adults having sex with children or children engaged in age inappropriate sex acts should be banned from Wikipedia. My reasoning is that it depicts and condones the sexual
I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any* sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
exploitation of children. These drawing shock the consciousness of people that are otherwise strong free speech advocates.
And worse, it ruins Wikipedia's credibility.
Steve
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any* sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions much like our own.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any* sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions much like our own.
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:46 PM, David Alexander Russell wrote:
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
Or, on a pragmatic level, child porn images incur legal and reputation-related risks to the project whilse ordinary sexual images do not incur these same risks.
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
WP:NOT censored for minors.
No, but it is censored *by* minors (i.e. me).
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-- Sam
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who viewed the image that it is _not_ legally child pornography, no matter how you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason to remove a completely legal image.
And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image is "immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally wrong. I do not.
I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...
Jay
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any* sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions much like our own.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFENt3Ig8fvtQYQevcRAnatAJ43HQBncdoAz7JKBoyh3JsY0sILlgCffOwo 9WJLsFIDsFl9n1a6HaFGyjg= =ebNJ -----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
G'day Jay,
[Context restored, for what little good it does]
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who viewed the image that it is _not_ legally child pornography, no matter how you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason to remove a completely legal image.
Three minutes' research shows me that you're committing that cardinal sin of assuming everybody else is American. Why should David --- or anybody else here --- give a flying fuck *what* the PROTECT Act says? Are you incapable of interpreting country codes, or just persistently unobservant?
And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image is "immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally wrong. I do not.
I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...
Well, good for you. Hopefully you've thought that one through a bit further than "titties and explosions good, children and sensitive women bad".
(Does "censorship is morally wrong" count as an argument in favour of keeping kiddie porn on the servers?)
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jay,
[Context restored, for what little good it does]
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who viewed the image that it is _not_ legally child pornography, no matter how you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason to remove a completely legal image.
Three minutes' research shows me that you're committing that cardinal sin of assuming everybody else is American. Why should David --- or anybody else here --- give a flying fuck *what* the PROTECT Act says? Are you incapable of interpreting country codes, or just persistently unobservant?
For that matter, what the flying fuck *is* the PROTECT act?
And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image is "immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally wrong. I do not.
I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...
Well, good for you. Hopefully you've thought that one through a bit further than "titties and explosions good, children and sensitive women bad".
(Does "censorship is morally wrong" count as an argument in favour of keeping kiddie porn on the servers?)
Morally wrong or not, the image was a copyright violation.
BTW, would you like to have goatse/tubgirl/autofellatio/(insert random Last Measure image here) on the servers?
On 4/8/06, Jay Whetherspoon polynomialjay@gmail.com wrote:
There's no legal reason to remove a completely legal image.
What do you mean by "legal reason"? If you mean, legally, we are not required to remove a legal image, then that's a tautology. If you mean, there is no valid reason to remove a legal reason, then that's simply incorrect. We remove images that are redundant, irrelevant, possibly copyright violations, offensive, poor quality, ugly, corrupt...
And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image is "immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally wrong. I do not.
But visitors to the site might, and if they feel strongly enough, they might even do something about it.
Steve
On 4/7/06, Jay Whetherspoon polynomialjay@gmail.com wrote:
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who viewed the image that it is _not_ legally child pornography, no matter how you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason to remove a completely legal image.
Expect that it was a "fair use" image used without permission from its author, who might be very pissed his or her "art" is hosted on Wikipedia...
-- mvh Björn
On 4/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of producing pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn. Process isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host child porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.
Depends what you mean, "up for a vote". To me, Wikipedia *could* take the line that hosting images such as the one that sparked this discussion is acceptable, or justified for whatever reason. But I doubt that the Foundation would be silly enough to let that happen.
In other words, I'm not certain, but I suspect that that image would be legal in many parts of the world. But there are all sorts of good reasons for not including it, that have nothing to do with legality.
Steve
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
"Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of human knowledge..."
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.
-- Sam
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.
Easily: child pornography is visual material that depicts explicit sexual activity involving children. My understanding (albeit unclear, as I've never seen the image in question) is that the image did not portray sexual activity.
You could also define child pornography as visual material that documents actually-occurring explicit sexual activity involving children. Since it's a fantasy sketch, not a photograph, there's no clear evidence that the image documents any actually-occurring activity either. Under US law, as well as the laws of several nations, erotic materials depicting children are perfectly legal so long as no children were harmed in their production--i.e., so long as they do not depict any actually-occurring activity.
I find absolutely no *moral* problem with the deleted image (although, needless to say, I do find it disgusting on other levels). However, I still support its deletion on *pragmatic* grounds--that the image itself was of net negative value to the encyclopedia.
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Easily: child pornography is visual material that depicts explicit sexual activity involving children. My understanding (albeit unclear, as I've never seen the image in question) is that the image did not portray sexual activity.
It wasn't explicit, but it was very, very strongly implied. Wikipedia's article on [[pornography]] says "Pornography ... is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal". This image very clearly fits into this.
You could also define child pornography as visual material that documents actually-occurring explicit sexual activity involving children. Since it's a fantasy sketch, not a photograph, there's no clear evidence that the image documents any actually-occurring activity either. Under US law, as well as the laws of several nations, erotic materials depicting children are perfectly legal so long as no children were harmed in their production--i.e., so long as they do not depict any actually-occurring activity.
Child pornography isn't ipso facto illegal, nor was it deleted on those grounds. It was deleted because child pornography is completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopaedia.
-- Sam
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
Easily: child pornography is visual material that depicts explicit sexual activity involving children. My understanding (albeit unclear, as I've never seen the image in question) is that the image did not portray sexual activity.
It wasn't explicit, but it was very, very strongly implied. Wikipedia's article on [[pornography]] says "Pornography ... is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal". This image very clearly fits into this.
You asked for "a definition", not "Wikipedia's definition".
You could also define child pornography as visual material that documents actually-occurring explicit sexual activity involving children. Since it's a fantasy sketch, not a photograph, there's no clear evidence that the image documents any actually-occurring activity either. Under US law, as well as the laws of several nations, erotic materials depicting children are perfectly legal so long as no children were harmed in their production--i.e., so long as they do not depict any actually-occurring activity.
Child pornography isn't ipso facto illegal, nor was it deleted on those grounds. It was deleted because child pornography is completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopaedia.
The image in question was completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. Whether it was really child pornography or not is an academic question of little interest to us now.
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
You asked for "a definition", not "Wikipedia's definition".
Fair enough; point conceded.
The image in question was completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. Whether it was really child pornography or not is an academic question of little interest to us now.
Although it is useful to discuss so that we know what to do next time.
-- Sam
On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
The image in question was completely inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. Whether it was really child pornography or not is an academic question of little interest to us now.
Although it is useful to discuss so that we know what to do next time.
The standard in that case is not "child pornography", but rather "likely to bring disrepute to the project".
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Definitions
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual children under a specified age. Some countries go further and prohibit all depictions of nudity of minors, whether or not the minor is depicted in an erotic pose or as engaging in a sex act. The broader prohibitions have led to controversy over pictures that are considered to have artistic merit; works by several prominent photographers, including Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, have been challenged as child pornography and sometimes banned. Still, in some countries, naturist magazines with depictions of nude children do not fall under the definition of child pornography, and are easily available.
Some countries prohibit visual depictions even when no actual children were involved in the making of the image. Such depictions may including paintings, drawings, or computer-generated images. (See "Simulated child pornography" below.) In some countries, not only visual depictions but, also, written works may fall within the definition of child pornography.
The minimum legal age for a depicted person varies from country to country. Some countries set one age for "hardcore" pornography and another for "softcore" pornography.
Most countries' laws provide an exception for materials that have artistic merit. Some prominent examples of this principle are Romeo and Juliet (the play and films), and Lolita (the novel and films). Subsequently, "lolita" has become a common codeword for child pornography, legal or not.
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.
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I think the point that he was making is that perceptions are not the main problem in a case such as this - many child porn laws make no distinction between real and simulated child porn images, so *objectively* these images *are* child porn
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
"Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of human knowledge..."
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:43 PM, David Alexander Russell wrote:
I think the point that he was making is that perceptions are not the main problem in a case such as this - many child porn laws make no distinction between real and simulated child porn images, so *objectively* these images *are* child porn
But many child porn laws *do* make the distinction, so *objectively* these images *are not* child porn.
As we can both see, it's useless to argue about whether the images themselves are, objectively, child pornography. That's not what matters, though. It's an irrelevant question. The real question is: was the image of net positive value to the encyclopedia? Due to the legal liabilities, PR risks, and general disrepute attached to the image, I argue that it was of net *negative* value, and ought to have been deleted on those grounds.
G'day Phil,
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
There's objective fact, and then there's the Phil Welch approach to reality. Well done.
On a certain level, you do have a point. For instance, take NPOV. We write from a neutral point of view not because that's the best kind of POV there is (it's not). The best kid of POV, in my opinion, is Mark Gallagher's Point of View. Ryan Delaney would probably consider his own POV the best one. I'm certain you think your POV is the best POV. Since I don't want your POV to be the Official Voice of Wikipedia, and you don't want mine, we compromise on NPOV. On many potentially subjective issues, consensus is the way to go. If Jimbo were to declare tomorrow that Mark Gallagher's POV replaces NPOV, I would be happy, and certain Wikipedia articles would undoubtedly improve out of sight ... but many editors would leave, if only because they don't like the idea of what our article "American English" now says.
On points of objective fact, however, there's really not that much room for differing viewpoints (except, perhaps, to point out that those views are wrong). We have an image, which is a) pornographic and b) depicts a child. There really aren't too many ways you can combine 'a' and 'b' without coming up with kiddie porn which is, I know you'll agree, a Bad Thing.
"Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of human knowledge..."
Heh, I must admit, that's a good line. Well done!
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
If that's the standard it takes to get that image deleted, I will accept it.
Smug jabs aside, here's the point; you and I might disagree about whether we should call that image "pornography", but that's a subjective disagreement about word meanings. I wouldn't like to have the rule be "No pornography allowed in Wikipedia", because although I agree with the proposition, what would happen is that people would go around calling random stuff "pornography" and demanding that it be deleted. That's what's going on here -- word meanings are fluid, vague, and different people interpret them differently. When I say "That image is pornography", I express a true proposition. When you say "That image is not pornography", you also express a true proposition; because what we mean by "pornography" is evidentally different.
The real issue here is whether we want that image in Wikipedia, given the legal and moral lines we would be walking by including it. I don't think a reasonable argument could be made in favor, either legally, morally, or in terms of benefit to the encyclopedia. At best, we've saved the WMF foundation and many thousands of readers from legal liability for copyright infringement and posession of child pornography. At worst, we've lost an image that was slightly more illustrative of the subject matter than the free, legal one we have now. Is it really worth all this argument? Let's get back to work on the encyclopedia.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of producing pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn. Process isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host child porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.
There's no child, only a drawing. No child + porn = no child porn.
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
Are you debating for the debates sake or are you contributing to an encyclopedia?
-- mvh Björn
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Are you debating for the debates sake or are you contributing to an encyclopedia?
I'm debating for the sake of not having the debate even take place next time.
Steve
G'day BJörn,
Something I feel have been missed is Sam Korn's original assertion that "[The image deletion] process is demonstrably broken" because this image was not deleted by it. I believe the process is not broken at all, but that Sam's approach to it was wrong. If he had stuck with the 100% demonstrably true facts; 1. the image is not free, 2. there is a free replacement, then I believe the image could have been deleted without much fuss. But when you use emotional arguments ("This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia..."), expect a filibuster.
I just had this amazing flash of insight! Like many amazing flashes of insight, it may be off-target, so feel free to correct me.
Let's step back in time, and give Sam his time over again.
(SK = "smoddy", LT = "Lolicon Trolls" because I couldn't think of anything better on the spur of the moment, SP = "FloNight", FL = "freedom lovers")
SK: Hi, I'm smoddy. I think you should delete this image because it's an unnecessary fair use image and there's a better free image available. LT: Actually, in the free image you don't quite get the same close up of sickeningly inappropriate child porn. Also, some of the magazines in the free image print drawings of adults, which is clearly wrong. SP: I agree with Sam! LT: FloNight agrees? That proves this is all about censorship! FL: AAARGH! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED! I haven't even seen this image, but we *cannot* delete it! You monsters! You're just like the Communists! Or was it Fascists?!
The moral of the story and, incidentally, the only part of this email that's serious, is that certain images will attract a crowd of anti-censorship Wikipedians regardless of what reasons we have for deletion.
On 4/5/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
\I don't think your description is particularly fair or objective. I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
Agreed. Poor judgment sure, wrong priorities definitely, but not paedophiles (or paedophile-friendly).
Steve
On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Matt R wrote:
I agree that 'pedophile' might have been a bit strong. Perhaps 'people who believe that Wikipedia has a duty to provide pedophiles with child porn regardless of the law' would be a more accurate, objective description.
\I don't think your description is particularly fair or objective. I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
I agree with Matt. This is not a profitable direction for discussion.
Philip Welch wrote:
I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
I agree with Matt. This is not a profitable direction for discussion.
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
I support the removal of the image in question, but I recognise that at least some of those who argued for it to be it kept did so out of good faith and a desire to create the best encyclopedia possible. I don't think they were trolling or motivated by a desire to supply pedophiles with child porn.
I agree with Matt. This is not a profitable direction for discussion.
Absolutely, but it is VERY important to pay attention to the fact that we are often trolled in this way, and that there are POV pushers involved. One clever way to troll is to raise the 'censorship' red herring in a way that makes it difficult to talk about serious questions of editorial judgment, questions about which reasonable people may of course differ without feeling that the other side is trying to censor.
Another clever way to troll is to accuse your opponents of being pedophiles. The alternative is to assume good faith.
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
I don't want to make any allegations, but look at who included the pedophile userbox on their userpages, then look at who participated in the [[Talk:Lolicon]] discussion. Not all those in favour of keeping the pic were pedophiles, but some, it seems, were.
M
Mikkerpikker wrote:
I'm sorry, who's a pedophile? Would you like to make any specific allegations or are you referring to everyone who wanted the image kept as a pedophile? That is a very strong allegation.
I don't want to make any allegations, but look at who included the pedophile userbox on their userpages, then look at who participated in the [[Talk:Lolicon]] discussion. Not all those in favour of keeping the pic were pedophiles, but some, it seems, were.
Arguments over whether to keep a picture should be based on the picture itself rather than on who is making the arguments.
Ec
Bravo! We can have a serious discussion of the photo without it on the site.
Sam Korn wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. It was an image of a young girl, her bottom exposed, holding a teddy bear with BDSM armcuffs and a strap-on dildo (not my description...).
This image bad in two main ways:
- It is grossly inappropriate. It is a poor reflection on
Wikipedia's goals and would serve our detractors. We wave "no censorship" around to justify outrageous images. This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia.
- The fair use claim is extremely dubious. IANAL, but it seems
generally accepted that there must be reference to the picture in the text to justify its inclusion. That is not present here. This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia.
It doesn't seem hard to fathom that this image has a huge potential to harm Wikipedia. We should, at this point, ask whether the image justifies this. Can the article be understood without the image? Undoubtedly yes. Can a determined reader find an example if the image is deleted? Undoubtedly yes. Does the benefit of including this picture, as opposed to any other lolicon pictures on Wikipedia, outweigh the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
-- 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 4/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I have just deleted Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg.
This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia's progression to build an encyclopaedia. ... This image is harmful to Wikipedia's progression as a free encyclopaedia. ... the potential it has to harm Wikipedia? Undoubtedly no.
Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
This seem to indicate that people disagree with you, why do they do that?
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
No. When you take the "my way or the highway" approach, people naturally tend to get irritated.
-- mvh Björn
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
In that it provides an easy way for detractors to rubbish Wikipedia, in that it has the potential to make Wikipedia harder to access for some people (particularly children with parental control programs) and in that including child pornography is not part of our goal to build a free encyclopaedia.
The image deletion process has shown itself incapable of removing this image. The process is demonstrably broken when there is a hint of controversy. I don't take stepping outside accepted policy and process lightly. Here, however, it is absolutely right and absolutely necessary.
This seem to indicate that people disagree with you, why do they do that?
As far as I can tell, a good number (*not* all) of the people discussing the matter on IfD were POV-pushing trolls. IfD has long shown itself incapable of deleting anything where there is a vague controversy and where groups of POV-pushers are manifesting themselves.
I apologise to any who see my actions as outrageously rogue-ish. I wish there were an alternative, less radical way.
No. When you take the "my way or the highway" approach, people naturally tend to get irritated.
I don't quite understand your point. I knew people would get irritated. What is your point?
-- Sam
Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
In that it provides an easy way for detractors to rubbish Wikipedia, in that it has the potential to make Wikipedia harder to access for some people (particularly children with parental control programs) and
Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not popularity.
This seem to indicate that people disagree with you, why do they do that?
As far as I can tell, a good number (*not* all) of the people discussing the matter on IfD were POV-pushing trolls. IfD has long shown itself incapable of deleting anything where there is a vague controversy and where groups of POV-pushers are manifesting themselves.
You lost when you started to apply denigrating labels on people. I don't think it is strange that you thougth that "the process was demonstrably broken" when you belittled those you were supposed to work with.
-- mvh Björn
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not popularity.
When people like Jimbo have to spend their time defending Wikipedia rather than working on achieving its goals, that harms the encyclopaedia. Child porn is such an awful label, we should do almost anything to avoid it.
Steve
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not popularity.
Please explain how this image that was *child pornography" furthered our encyclopaedic mission.
You lost when you started to apply denigrating labels on people. I don't think it is strange that you thougth that "the process was demonstrably broken" when you belittled those you were supposed to work with.
I've "lost"? I didn't know I was competing. The IfD process did not work because *some* (forgive my shouting, NOT ALL) the users voting keep were POV-pushing trolls.
-- Sam
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
In that it provides an easy way for detractors to rubbish Wikipedia, in that it has the potential to make Wikipedia harder to access for some people (particularly children with parental control programs) and
Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not popularity.
We're less likely to be sued?
This seem to indicate that people disagree with you, why do they do that?
As far as I can tell, a good number (*not* all) of the people discussing the matter on IfD were POV-pushing trolls. IfD has long shown itself incapable of deleting anything where there is a vague controversy and where groups of POV-pushers are manifesting themselves.
You lost when you started to apply denigrating labels on people. I don't think it is strange that you thougth that "the process was demonstrably broken" when you belittled those you were supposed to work with.
*cough*
He said the /process/, not the people running it (although apparantly, *I* have made attacks on those lowlife scum at xFD, yada yada...).
On 4/7/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
I suspect that the attitude demonstrated by that question is pretty much the reason why the image deletion process is broken in this instance, and why someone had to work up the guts to delete it in the end.
The picture showed a child being sexually abused, presented in a manner intended to sexually titillate the viewer, and you ask how this could have the potential to harm Wikipedia.