On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a
> firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
> Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
> essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of
child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the
pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the
photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
If the pictures were never posted to a public place
then there would
be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the
real issue. Is a child not worth zero risk? From the sounds of the
posts it seems like the complaint was about her and not the child.
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though,
including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a
photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
Of course the complaint is about me and not my kids. I'm not worried
about the well-being of my kids being jeopardized by a couple pictures.
Not in the least. What I'm upset about is your shameful behavior and the
fact that the moderators of this list ignored it. And I'm now pissed
about your excuse, which is so obviously fake. If you were concerned
with our kids, you would have done more than make an underhanded "aside"
comment on a list you knew we didn't subscribe to.
> am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting
> children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses
> on the net in Australia, and I naturally
assumed that they saw the
> risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or
would be a lot more
sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law
wouldn't apply here anyway.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the
recent issue with
commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos,
there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child
safety in Florida, US.
That's totally ridiculous. To say people shouldn't be able to upload
images of their kids. That's just ridiculous. I let my kids play outside
too, and I take them to the store with me. There is, of course, always
the risk of them being kidnapped, and so I risk that when I take them
out. I could shelter them in the house all the time, reducing that risk
to near zero, but I don't. Does that also make me an irresponsible parent?
> I would appreciate even simple comments about how
badly things could
> be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I
> was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be
> attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
It is a completely different culture in which people
both get annoyed
quickly and try to make scandals out of a few words, and in which
parents are ultra-sensitive about their parenting styles. Thats the
Australian part I was trying to get at. If someone here had thought to
tell me that it could be offensive then I would have retracted the
comment then and there. Now that I have thought about it I think the
point of the comment, child safety considerations, is relevant still.
If Florida doesn't give a stuff then I hope Wikipedia has a conscience
to care outside of what is explicitly needed by law.
First of all, this is yet again inappropriate. You just categorized a
nation of people as easily annoyed, scandalous and ultra-sensitive.
Second of all, I'm American. Pedro is British. Who's the Australian?
You? If so, you just categorized two nations of people.
Regardless, you stated you apologized. That's inaccurate. A
[[non-apology apology]] does not equal an apology.