Hoi, Discussions of single images is not productive. There are probably other pictures that are best removed. They are the exception not the rule. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 October 2010 11:02, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image I would think it best to remove permanently;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastur...
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Robert / all,
I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but related to the Controversial Content study;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_imp...
In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) - and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.
Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available to 'oversighters' here;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_imp...
I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)
best,
Peter, PM.
ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16 year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris rmharris@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content
is
now up on its own Meta page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content... .
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it
has
been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting.
Either
the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again
to
all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l