Дана Thursday 14 January 2010 05:59:39 David Goodman написа:
As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged
versions, without
the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a
strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM, private musings
<thepmaccount(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> G'day all,
> I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit
> images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on
> with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm
> trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation.
> It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers,
> and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to
> see what the general feeling is out there.... what I'd really like is for
> the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation
> may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits
> of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the
> advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts /
> recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from
> Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority;
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n
> ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where
> 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed
> - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an
> exemption to these requirements?