Stillwater Rising writes:
Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion, is a *
> no-win* situation for everyone involved.
This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A(g),
which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC
2257(h)(2)(B)). I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts about the
interaction and interpretation of these related statutes (as well as of the
interaction between 18 USC 2257(h) generally and 47 USC 230 and 231,
referenced within section 2257.
Here here. There is a tactical map of 18th century Boston by Lt. Page of the
British Army on commons that I really am just blown away by. I believe it is
a featured picture, if anyone is interested. Also I saw a brilliant photo of
a homeless person in Philidelphia that could have been put on a magazine
cover. We are fortunate to have these things. Let's not forget this.
On May 21, 2010 5:09 PM, "AGK" <wikiagk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
2010/5/21 Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>:
> ...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most
> beautiful images I've ever s...
foundation-l mailing list
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet
> points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but
> haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
That's fair. Here's the gist of it:
* An unprotected article gets put under "Pending Revisions"/"Double Check"
by an admin
* From that point forward, edits from anonymous users are listed as
"pending revisions", and aren't displayed to other anonymous readers by
default (though they'll be accessible from a "pending revisions" tab)
* Any autoconfirmed user can then mark the latest pending revision as
"accepted", or revert to the latest accepted revision.
I just uploaded a bunch of images that may help people visualize the feature
as we see it:
Here's the permissions as we're currently planning to deploy them for the
On Bugzilla I reported my observations about changes in FlaggedRevs
I am unhappy that you attempting to enable FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, you
forget about other projects.
Daniel aka Leinad
David Goodman writes:
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
> consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
> individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
> just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
> would suggest an option to initially display the lead paragraph only,
> of articles in certain categories.
I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume
there are some exceptions). Images that were just "dumped" to Commons
without being associated with any particular article would still be
available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a
particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous
porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who
chose this option.
Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The quick summary is that we are continuing with pre-rollout activities,
including UI polish, text and naming cleanup, and rollout planning.
One important milestone passed is that Tim Starling has looked over the
code and done some profiling and given it his blessing from a
performance perspective. He and the rest of the ops folks feel like the
production gear is also in good shape for rolling this out. However, to
prevent unpleasant launch surprises we've put in a configurable limit to
the number of pages protected with this. We'll start out at a limit of
2000 and bump it up based on actual production performance.
We believe we are technically ready to try out a labs version of the
German config, just to double-check that our recent work will cause them
no headaches. However, we need some German-speaker at least hazily
familiar with FlaggedRevs to prepare the main page and help us with a
call for testers. Any assistance there would be appreciated!
Speaking of assistance, we always welcome people trying out the
extension before it goes live. You can do that here:
To see what we've changed this week, there's a list here:
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and
We expect to release to labs again next week, and each week thereafter
until this goes live on the English Wikipedia.
I have a few questions about the deployment of Vector in Wikipedias in
1. When does the Foundation plan to perform the switch?
2. At least two major features which were not included in the Beta,
were enabled in the English Wikipedia: the new search box with "Go"
and "Search" buttons and the collapsible sidebar which hides
interlanguage links by default. A significant number of users in
en.wikipedia expressed their dissatisfaction with them and with the
fact that they were introduced by surprise. They are still not a part
of the Beta in other languages. Will they be enabled in other
languages when they are switched to Vector?
3. Did anyone consider appointing "Vector migration czars" in
Wikipedias in other languages? Because despite what some people might
think, quite a lot of speakers of other languages don't bother looking
at en.wikipedia and WMF blogs and mailing lists. I wrote a little
about the good (IMHO) and the bad (IMHO) features about Vector in the
Village Pumps of Wikipedias in languages that i know - Hebrew, Russian
in he.wikipedia who have a positive attitude towards Vector and who
gradually adapt the gadgets to it, and there are a few other JS gurus
who hate Vector and who don't want to bother about it and recommend
everyone to stay with Monobook. (Although my attitude may seem
negative, i actually belong to the first camp.) The situation is
similar in the Russian Wikipedia.
4. Finally, does the Foundation plan to gather any other feedback from
other language Wikipedias except the "Beta retention rate"?
Thanks in advance.
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here:
Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
I can accept that Commons may not fit under the definition of
"secondary producer." However, when Wikipedians choose a sexually
explicit image from Commons, the crop it and add a caption, this may
fall under the "selection or alteration of the communication" exception.
Now consider that Wilipedia publishes print versions, encourages
mirroring, as well as makes articles available as PDF files, this
seems like Wikipedia (and thereby WMF) would qualify as a secondary
On May 20, 2010, at 1:37 AM, wjhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> You are missing the key point. The pivot upon which the issue turns
> is not whether or not a site is non-commercial or educational. The
> pivot is whether the site itself creates the content, or whether it
> merely hosts the content.
> Wikimedia Commons is more likely to be viewed as a host agent like
> Flicker or Facebook, and not a creator.
> A host does not have a legal requirement to maintain any records of
> this sort.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stillwater Rising <stillwaterising(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 10:03 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content --
> help, please!
> The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply
> with USC
> 2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part
> of my
> April 2010 sexual content proposal. To clarify, I did not then and
> still do
> not believe OTRS should be directly handing Personally Identifying
> Information (PII) for sexual content, but should have a way of
> that it exists by at least keeping on file the name and address of the
> individual(s) who are keeping the records. Mr. Sabol (below) thought
> Wikimedia should be setting an example of how educational
> institutions can
> handle this issue responsibly.
> In my opinion, the advantages of obtaining this information far
> potential disadvantages. I've listed the advantages in multiple
> places, so
> I'll just give a link to the latest discussion
> The unfortunate part is that there's no support for this idea from
> the legal
> council, in fact Mike Godwin's statements seem to indicate that we
> not be concerned with these records at all. This is unfortunate,
> there is no clear exemption for non-commercial or educational
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Goodman
> <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If
>> exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to
>> advise our users about their own responsibilities.
>> If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not
>> oppose our doing so-- it raises the question that if we do it in such
>> a manner as to match the requirements of US law, even to the extent
>> making use of a service set up specifically to meet that law's
>> detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in
>> advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our
>> defense that we are not a producer?
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Stillwater Rising
>> <stillwaterising(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257
>>> record-keeping service called 2257services.net<
>>> His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking
>>> accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an
>>> that discusses how child pornography laws apply to small business
>>> On the top of page 4 there's a FAQ section that says:
>>> *Q. How does the rule apply to social networking sites?*
>>> A. Most social networking sites would not be covered by the rule
>>> definition of
>>> “produces” excludes “the transmission, storage, retrieval,
>>> formatting, or
>>> translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without
>>> selection or
>>> alteration of the communication.” Social networking sites would
>>> not then
>>> normally need
>>> to comply with the rule’s record-keeping requirements, labeling
>>> requirements, or be
>>> required to maintain information concerning their users, and the
>>> have no effect on the operations of the site. However, users of
>>> networking sites
>>> who post sexually explicit activity on “adult” networking sites
>>> may well
>>> primary or
>>> secondary producers. Therefore, users of social networking sites
>>> may be
>>> subject to the
>>> rule, depending on their conduct.
>>> He considers Wikipedia to be a social networking site therefore
>>> be considered a secondary producer (we do have "selection or
>>> the communication" however). He thinks we should find a way to
>>> make sure
>>> that uploaders (who are primary producers if "own work" or secondary
>>> producers if somebody else's) should be keeping records and there
>>> several ways to do this. We also need to report any suspected
>>> to the proper authorities.
>>> Since Drew runs a contract record keeping service, he said he
>>> would be
>>> willing to work out a deal with the Board of Trustees to modify his
>>> so individual users can log in and upload records while OTRS
>>> administrative rights to verify the records exist. His usual cost
>>> up fees) is $1.00 per record. His email is admin(a)2257services.net
>>> and he
>>> willing to discuss the matter with a Board of staff member who
>>> would like
>>> know more.
>>> More information:
>>> Generic model affidavit:
>>> Bloggers Legal Guide: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult
>>> *On Adult Material*: "The regulations imply that the record-keeping
>>> requirement is restricted to commercial operations. This would
>>> seem to
>>> exclude noncommercial or educational distribution from the
>>> to limit secondary publishing and reproduction to material
>>> intended for
>>> commercial distribution. However, the DOJ has left wiggle-room,
>>> and it is
>>> still unclear if they intend to go after noncommercial websites."
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
WebM is a new open source video codec; That's interesting
with a BSD-ish license; Ok, that's amazing
Google did it; That's huge.
The question to this esteemed community is thus:
Shall we start using it? :-)
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72