Florence Devouard wrote:
I can not help reflect further on the whole Virgin
Killer story.
Why is that?
A lack of self control, or because you actually have a
deeply thought out viewpoint?
Whilst I am very happy of the final outcome, and thank
David Gerard and
WMF for having handled that very well, I feel also a big disatisfied by
the way we acknowledged what happen and discuss future steps.
Wow. I think you are deluded if you think we are anywhere near
to a final outcome of all this...
We all perfectly know that if this particular image
was borderline,
there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries.
In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may
be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not
going to cite any examples publicly ;-)
Frankly, as a person who thinks nothing of enjoying a sauna
with members of the other gender of any age, I think you are
overstating it considerably to say *all* of us think the image is
even mildly controversial, except for the perverted sense of
shame many cultures have bestowed on the natural human
body form.
To underline why I personally find your posting very offensive
in the absolutel, I will simply ask, why are you refraining talking
about some things publically, but declining to talk to people
with actual responsibility of real legal stuff, privately.
Or are we to assume that you speaking out here publically is
a result of you not getting the result you want through your
private channels to the legal people of the foundation?
Until now, we have blinded ourselves in claiming that
* we do not really need to respect local countries law. We respect by
default the law of the country where projects are hosted (USA)
* if a country is not happy with some of the content, they can bring the
affair in front of a local tribunal. Then it will have to go in front of
an international tribunal. This will last 5 years at least. Good for us.
* if a legal decision forbid us to show a certain article or a certain
image, we'll implement a system to block showing the images or text in a
certain country.
And that was it !
Now, the fact is that we see that other mecanisms can work much better
than the legal route. It is sufficient that a Foundation, privately
funded by ISP, establish a black list, for the image/text to be not
accessible. And on top of that, in a few hours, for most of the citizens
of this country to be blocked from editing.
Now, seriously, what is more important right now ?
That citizens can not read one article ?
Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any more ?
I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and
distributed by anyone, so preventing reading our site is not such a bid
deal.
However, editing can only be done on our site, so the impact of blocking
in editing is quite dramatic.
My point is not to bend on local laws at all.
But I'd like to see people change their minds about the traditional
route we used to think we could be blocked in "democratic" countries
(legal route, with local then international tribunal).
And I'd like to see people think about the "worst cases", and then work
on how to decrease the impact (or prevent entirely) these worst cases.
Scenario planning in short.
If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
will block it for real. And they will block again editing. Is that a
concern ? Can it happen again ? What's the risk of it happening again ?
If it does, what do we do ? Which discussions should we start to avoid
the entire edit-blocking again ?
And... beyond UK, what do we know about the censorship-systems the
countries are setting into place ? I understood that Australia was
setting up the same system than UK, but that France was rather thinking
of other system. Should not we get to know and understand better what
governments are planning ? Should we try to lobby them to adopt certains
choices or not ? Should we help them adopt wise practices ?
Really I am ashamed to read anyone writing such drivel, who
has even momentarily held a position of responsibility in the
organisation of the foundation.
Of course not.
If that was the responce you wanted; well, there you have it,
from my fingers.
Why anyone would want such re-assurance is beyond me though.
It would be genuinely of earth-shattering import, if *we* as a
foundation found that we should enter into the games of
partisan politics in any shape or form. Even in issues that are
close to hour heart in a legitimate fashion.
We just don't do that.
Or should we just wait to see what's next ?
/me opens wide...
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen