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
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
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
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...
You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
An'n 11.10.2010 13:15, hett wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk schreven:
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...
You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
The file doesn't exist anymore, so that's hardly a problem. I don't know the original image but if it was an image of a 16 year old that's not "child pornography". It's illegal and I agree that it's illegal for a good reason, but it's not sexual child abuse. And every legislation that deems a single image of a naked underage girl in your cache illegal or would lead to a lifetime employment barring is plain moronic. The internet is full of this stuff. Nota bene: not full of "child abuse", but full of material of biologically mature, but underage individuals ("amateur" porn).
As the amount of consumed non-professionally produced porn grows, the probability to encounter underage porn approaches 1.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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...
You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
I think you're overstating the risk here, if you're referring to developers clicking on the link in order to delete the file (which private musings noted is only available to oversighters, contrary to Marcus Buck's comment that the file no longer exists).
Accessing a file in order to delete it from public view is in the public interest. I suppose laws can be different everywhere, but prohibiting the deletion of such images on grounds that you have to possess it in order to delete it... Not exactly productive, if the intent is to limit access as much as possible.
As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy development an important concern.
Nathan
On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy development an important concern.
Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value, should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance. (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be a somewhat curated repository, after all.
The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.
(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)
- d.
Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like --
* any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons * there are no identifiable people in the image * etc.
It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community.
Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content
Andreas
Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value, should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance. (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be a somewhat curated repository, after all.
The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.
(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)
There's probably an important and interesting 'meta' point to make about whether or not lists such as this one actually have utility in forwarding discussion and resolution,or whether we prefer to sort of talk to ourselves, then let things slide... but I'm going for the later...
I really just wanted to follow up the issue of a systemic approach to permanent deletion of material which may be illegal on WMF servers - stewards and oversighters on commons can still access an image of a 16 year old girl masturbating - 9 months after I first notified this list....
my initial post - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056658.html
image of 16 year old girl masturbating - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastur...
Now I would ask Mike if that's legal or not, but I can't seem to get hold of him - I've previously notified board members on meta with no response, and hope it's now appropriate to copy Sue on this to ensure all are at least aware of the lack of action here....
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like --
- any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons
- there are no identifiable people in the image
- etc.
It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community.
Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content
Andreas
Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value, should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance. (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be a somewhat curated repository, after all.
The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.
(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/10/2010 15:56, Nathan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM,wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
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...
You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
I think you're overstating the risk here, if you're referring to developers clicking on the link in order to delete the file (which private musings noted is only available to oversighters, contrary to Marcus Buck's comment that the file no longer exists).
Accessing a file in order to delete it from public view is in the public interest. I suppose laws can be different everywhere, but prohibiting the deletion of such images on grounds that you have to possess it in order to delete it... Not exactly productive, if the intent is to limit access as much as possible.
One wouldn't want to be doing it from one's home computer.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org