Forget the last message about the UK ISP's blocking certain articles, the sentence I pasted from wikinews said the some wikimedia sites are blocked altogether by some UK ISP's. That should clarify what I'm been saying.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:44 PM, techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca wrote:
Forget the last message about the UK ISP's blocking certain articles, the sentence I pasted from wikinews said the some wikimedia sites are blocked altogether by some UK ISP's. That should clarify what I'm been saying.
And as far as anyone competent knows, Wikinews is incorrect on this point. If you had any expired with Wikinews this would not surprise you. Wikinews is what you would get if you combined myspace with fox news and put the result on a wiki.
It is actually true that some ISP have mistakenly blocked all accesses to Wikimedia sites.
We have received a complaint to that effect on OTRS, from a ISP technician. It seems that their upstream provider screwed up their redirection hacks (using BGP) and mistakenly propagated them to its clients.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:57 AM, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
It is actually true that some ISP have mistakenly blocked all accesses to Wikimedia sites.
We have received a complaint to that effect on OTRS, from a ISP technician. It seems that their upstream provider screwed up their redirection hacks (using BGP) and mistakenly propagated them to its clients.
I was aware of that. I didn't consider it the same.
For those unaware of how this works: The participating ISPs re-announce one of Wikimedia's IPs in their own networks in order to hijack all the connections. Normally these reannouncments are not distributed outside of the providers network. But mistakes can be made. This is how, a few months ago, Pakistan managed to knock youtube off the internet.
A single configuration glitch from one of these blocking ISPs may have the same effect.
The thing I don't understand here is why they don't censor other sites that also carry the image - as was brought up on the wiki, Amazon has the image, and many stores that sell the album have the image. If Wikipedia's usage is illegal, why isn't their usage illegal?
FastLizard4 wrote:
The thing I don't understand here is why they don't censor other sites that also carry the image - as was brought up on the wiki, Amazon has the image, and many stores that sell the album have the image. If Wikipedia's usage is illegal, why isn't their usage illegal?
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
It's very wise - attacking Wikipedia and only Wikipedia is great method of promoting IWF itself.
AJF/WarX
2008/12/8 Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
It's very wise - attacking Wikipedia and only Wikipedia is great method of promoting IWF itself.
I'm not sure that the IWF would want to be publicly recognised. They already wield a lot of power as gatekeepers for 95% of UK internet users, without any accountability or official standing. I'm not sure what publicity and public awareness could achieve for them except questions about their role and position. People tend not to like unaccountable censorship and the organisations which carry it out.
In blocking the Wikipedia article and the collateral damage this has caused, they haven't improved their standing, they have undermined themselves. All of the news stories I have read regarding this are either neutral or take an anti-censorship line (since this album is available to buy in the high street and on Amazon, it doesn't make much sense to blame Wikipedia, an objective encyclopedia documenting the album).
Surely the IWF is the kind of organisation that would prefer to be safely unknown, rather than publicised and questioned?
2008/12/8 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
Surely the IWF is the kind of organisation that would prefer to be safely unknown, rather than publicised and questioned?
Sort of. They rely on "public reporting" of dubious material - which in itself begs the question, how often does someone stumble across child porn whilst browsing the internet? - and in order to report something you have to know you can report it to someone, so they have to publicise themselves, eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7689241.stm
That said, there's a difference between "we fight child porn, tell us about it" and "we'll filter national internet access on a whim" as far as publicity goes.
2008/12/8 Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
It's very wise - attacking Wikipedia and only Wikipedia is great method of promoting IWF itself.
Yeah, I bet they're just loving the "promotion" they're getting.
I'm amazed I haven't even seen a positive comment about this on the sites of UK newspapers whose usual maxim in such cases is "ban this filth".
- d.
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
2008/12/8 Isabell Long isabell121@gmail.com:
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
It's offensive, sure, I think most people agree with that. It isn't illegal though. We have an article on the word "Fuck", that can certainly be considered offensive but it is perfectly correct for us to have an article on it since it is a notable topic and it is impossible to fully discuss the word without using the word. Likewise, it is impossible to fully discuss an image without showing that image.
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they resort to this.
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isabell Long Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
Hoi, What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures of the beach, the sun, the surf.
The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture, within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common understanding.
What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully denied. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they resort to this.
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isabell Long Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
-- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell121@gmail.com OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No sir, the level of discussion, by definition, means this is questionable. Had I said it is obviously pornography, then you'd have had a point, but I didn't and you don't. It is obviously questionable as evidenced by all the questions (questionable - questions).
As to what a person wants to do, it's up to them until it affects me. Once it affects me, it is no longer choice, other considerations are necessary. Then you have the concept of "legally responsible". A person who is not mentally capable of making responsible decisions cannot be expected to make correct decisions without help. Thus, minor children, mentally disabled, incapacitated humans etc need an advocate so they are not exploited for their lack of capacity. So, certain laws apply without regard to things not in control of the victim. In this case, a minor child was exploited for money. Someone should have protected the child from such a consequence as this.
Now we can get into all kinds of decisions about cultures, laws, morals, etc., but that wasn't the point of my post - nor a good idea for this forum. Feel free to come over to any of the email lists to which I subscribe that talk to that topic and I'll carry on with you as long as you like. In this case, in the country under scrutiny, there are laws about what is and isn't decent. There are mechanisms for making the laws, defining them and prosecuting them. Whatever, you, me or anyone else thinks, in the country of interest, this either is or isn't against the law. If it's against the law, it shouldn't be there. If is isn't against the law, it should be allowed without question. If it is one of those things and someone thinks it ought to be the other, then they should take it through the process used by that country to change their laws.
As far as position, I gave three: you're against it, your for it, or your in the middle and haven't decided. If you know of another position, I'm all ears. We aren't talk esoteric things here. We have one picture, you are for it, against it or deciding. It's pretty well established beyond my linguistic ability that permissiveness and liberalism is synonymous and associated with what the media calls the "left". Conservatism and restraint and synonymous and associated with what the media calls the "right". Words mean things. You want to be called something else, change your views. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? You have a view, it's associated with a position - why do you have a problem with that?
---Mike
P.s. sorry folks - I promise, that's my last post in this forum on that subject.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:41 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
Hoi, What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures of the beach, the sun, the surf.
The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture, within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common understanding.
What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully denied. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above
a
woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then
you
have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year.
They
don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks
who
sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they resort to this.
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isabell Long Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
-- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell121@gmail.com OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, One of the points that I made is exactly that liberalism equates to conservatism. This may be not how you understand it, but for me it is a given. Associating specific political philosophies like liberalism with paedophilia is a travesty. If this is beyond your linguistic ability to appreciate, then I am really eager not to discuss this with you because your blinkers and probably mine will prevent any meaningful exchange of points of view. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil
No sir, the level of discussion, by definition, means this is questionable. Had I said it is obviously pornography, then you'd have had a point, but I didn't and you don't. It is obviously questionable as evidenced by all the questions (questionable - questions).
As to what a person wants to do, it's up to them until it affects me. Once it affects me, it is no longer choice, other considerations are necessary. Then you have the concept of "legally responsible". A person who is not mentally capable of making responsible decisions cannot be expected to make correct decisions without help. Thus, minor children, mentally disabled, incapacitated humans etc need an advocate so they are not exploited for their lack of capacity. So, certain laws apply without regard to things not in control of the victim. In this case, a minor child was exploited for money. Someone should have protected the child from such a consequence as this.
Now we can get into all kinds of decisions about cultures, laws, morals, etc., but that wasn't the point of my post - nor a good idea for this forum. Feel free to come over to any of the email lists to which I subscribe that talk to that topic and I'll carry on with you as long as you like. In this case, in the country under scrutiny, there are laws about what is and isn't decent. There are mechanisms for making the laws, defining them and prosecuting them. Whatever, you, me or anyone else thinks, in the country of interest, this either is or isn't against the law. If it's against the law, it shouldn't be there. If is isn't against the law, it should be allowed without question. If it is one of those things and someone thinks it ought to be the other, then they should take it through the process used by that country to change their laws.
As far as position, I gave three: you're against it, your for it, or your in the middle and haven't decided. If you know of another position, I'm all ears. We aren't talk esoteric things here. We have one picture, you are for it, against it or deciding. It's pretty well established beyond my linguistic ability that permissiveness and liberalism is synonymous and associated with what the media calls the "left". Conservatism and restraint and synonymous and associated with what the media calls the "right". Words mean things. You want to be called something else, change your views. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? You have a view, it's associated with a position - why do you have a problem with that?
---Mike
P.s. sorry folks - I promise, that's my last post in this forum on that subject.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:41 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
Hoi, What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures of the beach, the sun, the surf.
The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture, within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common understanding.
What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully denied. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above
a
woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then
you
have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year.
They
don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks
who
sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they resort to this.
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isabell Long Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
-- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell121@gmail.com OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I am concerned by the "only the USA matters, screw the rest of the world" attitude displayed by some American Wikipedians.
Do we care more about fighting censorship or letting British users edit Wikipedia?
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned by the "only the USA matters, screw the rest of the world" attitude displayed by some American Wikipedians.
Do we care more about fighting censorship or letting British users edit Wikipedia?
I don't think we care all that much about "fighting censorship": We're not really doing much fighting, we never have. We could do a lot: We could be promoting SSL and TOR, we could be evading the block, we could change Wikipedia to have a black background for censored users with a video from Jimmy explaining why the current situation is harmful. We could be litigating against the IWF and ISPs who are hijacking our traffic, even if we don't think we'd win. etc. We could make readers access to Wikipedia an all or nothing thing. These things would be fighting censorship.
Right now we're just talking politely. At best you can say we're not being instantly cowed by demands by some private organization, over material which as far as we can tell both contributes to our mission (in however minor a way) and which is not illegal. I think this is good because if we were to do otherwise there would be no clear place to stop.
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself. So long as the UK networks use censorship run in a technically broken way we can have no safety no matter what we host. Your dichotomy is a false one.
(1) The blocking should be changed to be the actual image, rather than the page text. This would remove most of the collateral damage (no more editing problems), and actually do better at accomplishing their goals. Right now the ISPs and IWF claim to be protecting people from a harmful image, yet they aren't doing that: Instead they are protecting people from the discussion of the controversy and not stopping the image at all.
(2) All of the proxies should be sending the XFF header to avoid the collateral damage. (a few did, and we we accept the header from them now)
We've requested both of these things for days now, because of the way the filtering is performed (with each ISP doing its own thing) (2) may take a while, but I see no technical reason why (1) couldn't be done right away.
I think most participating in the discussion on this mailing list do not hold that attitude, thankfully. But I do see quite a few "ZOMG CENSORSHIP!"-like comments on IRC and AN. On IRC, an American actually did say something like "If the rest of the world want to censor, screw the rest of the world".
Wikipedia's stance against censorship seems noble in theory, but in practice, it looks more like ideological blindness. It worsens systemic bias by giving editors, especially Americans, carte blanche (did I use that correctly?) to attack other cultures.
By the way, I agree that the policy against open proxies needs to be changed. TOR is the best and most common way to circumvent the Great Firewall of China. Why are many established Wikipedians, not at all concerned that mainland Chinese. who comprise around 20% of the world population, cannot edit Wikipedia?
(I apologise for the anti-Americanism. In my experience, it is usually Americans who are like that, although some non-Americans are like that too. Many Americans are not like that and I wish to assure them that I am not targeting them in this post.)
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
Techman224
On 8-Dec-08, at 10:44 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
I think most participating in the discussion on this mailing list do not hold that attitude, thankfully. But I do see quite a few "ZOMG CENSORSHIP!"-like comments on IRC and AN. On IRC, an American actually did say something like "If the rest of the world want to censor, screw the rest of the world".
Wikipedia's stance against censorship seems noble in theory, but in practice, it looks more like ideological blindness. It worsens systemic bias by giving editors, especially Americans, carte blanche (did I use that correctly?) to attack other cultures.
By the way, I agree that the policy against open proxies needs to be changed. TOR is the best and most common way to circumvent the Great Firewall of China. Why are many established Wikipedians, not at all concerned that mainland Chinese. who comprise around 20% of the world population, cannot edit Wikipedia?
(I apologise for the anti-Americanism. In my experience, it is usually Americans who are like that, although some non-Americans are like that too. Many Americans are not like that and I wish to assure them that I am not targeting them in this post.)
-- Written with passion, J.L.W.S. The Special One
2008/12/9, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned by the "only the USA matters, screw the rest of the world" attitude displayed by some American Wikipedians.
Do we care more about fighting censorship or letting British users edit Wikipedia?
I don't think we care all that much about "fighting censorship": We're not really doing much fighting, we never have. We could do a lot: We could be promoting SSL and TOR, we could be evading the block, we could change Wikipedia to have a black background for censored users with a video from Jimmy explaining why the current situation is harmful. We could be litigating against the IWF and ISPs who are hijacking our traffic, even if we don't think we'd win. etc. We could make readers access to Wikipedia an all or nothing thing. These things would be fighting censorship.
Right now we're just talking politely. At best you can say we're not being instantly cowed by demands by some private organization, over material which as far as we can tell both contributes to our mission (in however minor a way) and which is not illegal. I think this is good because if we were to do otherwise there would be no clear place to stop.
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself. So long as the UK networks use censorship run in a technically broken way we can have no safety no matter what we host. Your dichotomy is a false one.
(1) The blocking should be changed to be the actual image, rather than the page text. This would remove most of the collateral damage (no more editing problems), and actually do better at accomplishing their goals. Right now the ISPs and IWF claim to be protecting people from a harmful image, yet they aren't doing that: Instead they are protecting people from the discussion of the controversy and not stopping the image at all.
(2) All of the proxies should be sending the XFF header to avoid the collateral damage. (a few did, and we we accept the header from them now)
We've requested both of these things for days now, because of the way the filtering is performed (with each ISP doing its own thing) (2) may take a while, but I see no technical reason why (1) couldn't be done right away.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2008/12/9 techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which means deleting the entire project.
I ment in the way that we don't say "your culture is bad", or something like that.
Techman224
On 9-Dec-08, at 7:51 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/9 techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which means deleting the entire project.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I think most participating in the discussion on this mailing list do not hold that attitude, thankfully. But I do see quite a few "ZOMG CENSORSHIP!"-like comments on IRC and AN. On IRC, an American actually did say something like "If the rest of the world want to censor, screw the rest of the world".
Many Americans feel very strongly about censorship, I wouldn't take this as an affront really. Even the ones that say stupid things like "screw the rest of the world" are probably talking more out of frustration than anything else. For most americans, when they know that other places are censoring, they assume it is against the will of the people, that may or may not be true, but it does change how they interact with the situation.
While I agree with Gregory, it's not as black and white as caring about British editing vs stopping censorship. If it were that simple though, I think a great many americans would say stopping censorship is more important than having British users edit Wikipedia if it means that the censorship will end, and they can edit again uncensored.
This is not really a double standard, it's just a difference in values. If the state I lived in, say, started censoring things on the web I would *want* wikipedia to block access completely in order to cause people the most interruption until the censorship stopped. I would also want there to be protests in the streets. When many americans see censorship in other areas they almost assume that is their opinion too, when it might not be.
2008/12/9 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
Right now we're just talking politely. At best you can say we're not being instantly cowed by demands by some private organization, over material which as far as we can tell both contributes to our mission (in however minor a way) and which is not illegal. I think this is good because if we were to do otherwise there would be no clear place to stop.
Explaining factual information in detail is what we're good at and what we basically do. So far, it's working quite well :-D
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself. So long as the UK networks use censorship run in a technically broken way we can have no safety no matter what we host. Your dichotomy is a false one. (2) All of the proxies should be sending the XFF header to avoid the collateral damage. (a few did, and we we accept the header from them now)
In the case of Virgin Media, we spent months a few years ago getting them to get their XFF headers in a reliable and sensible condition so not all NTL/Virgin users appeared to be coming from their huge city-wide proxies, but from their individual IPs. Virgin switched that off on Saturday and are making out that the resulting breakage is somehow our doing and not theirs. This is more than a little obnoxious of them.
- d.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Isabell Long isabell121@gmail.com wrote:
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.35.htm
They block:
- images of child sexual abuse* hosted anywhere in the world - criminally obscene content hosted in the UK - incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK
I'm not aware of any other images of child sexual abuse in Wikipedia.
Does this image qualify as such? I'd have to say it does. It may not be illegal, I don't know UK law, but I do believe that telling a minor to pose that way for a photograph is child sexual abuse.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself.
C'mon, what about the technical incompetence in the manner in which the Mediawiki software identifies unique individuals?
IP addresses aren't people.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:39 AM, techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca wrote:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
There's a difference between neutrality and moral relativism.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/9 techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which means deleting the entire project.
On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get Wikipedia blocked everywhere.
You can't form ideals by having a bunch of people randomly throw together a list of things they like on a wiki page. There are specific reasons why this image in particular was considered unacceptable, but other "offensive" images were not. In the view of the IWF, this is an image of child sexual abuse. They are saying, and I have to agree, that telling a young child to strip down and pose for an album cover is an act of child abuse, and this image is the result of that act. To defend this image, I think you have to go beyond "respecting other cultures" and really think about whether or not you agree with that description. And if you do, then you've got to take the next step and explain why it is right for Wikipedia to distribute this image anyway.
I think I could come up with a justification for the distribution of this image, if it is distributed solely for the purpose of reducing child sexual abuse (such as through education), and is done so with the explicit permission of the now-adult victim. But I don't think Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is capable of fulfilling that purpose.
For all the arguing back and forth, so few people seem to be bringing up the true questions posed by this image.
Anthony
So what is your answer? Do cultures/governments have a right to National Sovereignity, or should they give up Soverignity so they can share everything that is available on the Internet? (your answer doesn't matter, because it is only your opinion, whatever it is there is someplace a person who will disagree with it).
To use a temporal metaphor, there's no such things as "a little bit pregnant". Once you let certain things into your cultural, there's no take it or leave it, you are forced to take it. Consequently, if you have a culture based on some form of abstinence (I'm not talking about merely sex, but abstinence from Islam, Christinaity, Buddhism, firearms, free speech, pick your objective) and a tool becomes available that allows the object of your abstinence to enter, you've destroyed the culture through the promotion of "freedom of choice". A cultural is created by having a set of shared values. Once the whole population ceases to cherish the same values, it is no longer a culture. That kind of fracture is what got Ireland fighting over Protestanism and Roman Catholicism, got Americans fighting over slavery in the Civil War, has children of Abraham fighting over Isaac and Ishmaeel. Fractured cultures result in wars.
Wikimedia is such a tool. If we allow wikimedia to be the tool that fractures a culturet is the instrument of it's demise no matter the outcome. This is where the decision comes that, "Yeah, well, my way of thinking is better, so let's go ahead and fracture theirs". However, those very advocates are very much against allowing their beliefs to become fractured (i.e., there are people who are willing to stand up for "freedom of expression" by allowing pronography in some or all its forms, but they are against censorship - even if that's what the culture wants. They don't like the fact that someone has rejected or criticized their viewpoint).
The truth is, allowing or disallowing the article is damaging one of the two viewpoints and some culture will be altered by what happens next. Since wikimedia is a tool, what is best is to allow them to take whatever actions are necessary to allow their culture to survive. For that reason, I disagree that only the one page should be censored. To function in that way, you have to wait until the culture is offended before you act, thus allowing the object of your offense to enter before you act. Again, an analogy; would you think it wise that homes, cars and businesses should not have locks on their doors? Some people who come in are friends, others are business and only a very few have ill intent. Should you wait until someone comes in and does something wrong before you act against them? No, it's a pretty good bet that someone who comes through your door at 1:00am while you are sleeping is going to harm you or your property. You have a right to protect yourself, so you lock your doors at night, but leave them open during the daytime while you can observe them. Same thing with wikimedia. If a culture is worried about being altered by the freedom within wikimedia, then they should be allowed to not allow it in, or, at best, only allow it in on an "as observed and approved" basis. Since the very nature of wikimedia is flux, that is, allowing unlimited change as users warrant, watching is not acceptable security, Q.E.D. blocking the entire site is the only way of securing the culture you wish to preserve.
I agree that America has turned into the very opressor they escaped in 1776. It seems they want to colonize the world with their views, even with force if deemed to be the only thing that will change the mind of their objective, and spread their culture to the rest of the world in the name of righteousness (p.s., I'm an American, so I can say what I like about my own government). Their problem is, they don't realize that the freedom they think they value was once a shared dream of every American, making it a culture. America no longer shares the same values and dreams. Partisan politics have fractured America and the growing schism is a race between parties for whose values will bhe spread, and where.
Wow! Deep stuff for a wikipedia list :-)
---Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [* mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org*wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:52 AM
To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
2008/12/9 techman224 techman224@yahoo.ca:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them.
If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore.
There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against
our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral
and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we
have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which
means deleting the entire project.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l*https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get Wikipedia blocked everywhere.
Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is and isn't acceptable. We use the law for that. The fact that no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image that was been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't illegal.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get
Wikipedia
blocked everywhere.
Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is and isn't acceptable.
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
We use the law for that.
What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly Florida law, and all US law for that matter, allows for speech which is directly contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal under Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable content (I say "at best" because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under the laws of all states in the world is clearly a subset of acceptable content.
The fact that no-one
has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image that was been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't illegal.
I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban the page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get
Wikipedia
blocked everywhere.
Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is and isn't acceptable.
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
We use the law for that.
What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly Florida law, and all US law for that matter, allows for speech which is directly contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal under Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable content (I say "at best" because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under the laws of all states in the world is clearly a subset of acceptable content.
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in the matter. What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And says who?
The fact that no-one
has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image that was been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't illegal.
I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban the page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite conclusion.
"Consulted" doesn't mean much, we have no idea what they said, just that they were asked about it. The fact that they didn't, as soon as they saw the article, start arresting record shop owners suggests they didn't think it was particularly illegal.
Furthermore, I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
2008/12/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Furthermore, I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
There are no known reports of such. If Anthony believes there are, perhaps he should cite them.
- d.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get
Wikipedia
blocked everywhere.
Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is and isn't acceptable.
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously, though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits of content.
We use the law for that.
What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly
Florida
law, and all US law for that matter, allows for speech which is directly contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal
under
Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable content (I say "at best" because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under
the
laws of all states in the world is clearly a subset of acceptable
content.
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in the matter.
That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why choose arbitrarily?
What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And says who?
The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law. But I don't find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's just one example though. There are an infinite number of them.
The fact that no-one
has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image that was been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't illegal.
I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban
the
page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite conclusion.
"Consulted" doesn't mean much, we have no idea what they said, just that they were asked about it. The fact that they didn't, as soon as they saw the article, start arresting record shop owners suggests they didn't think it was particularly illegal.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this point.
Furthermore, I
don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been
charged
with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
Why are those the only jurisdictions relevant? I thought the only relevant jurisdiction was Florida.
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously, though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits of content.
Oh, sure, we need to decide what is acceptable in terms of notability and verifiability, that's not the same as deciding what is morally acceptable which is what we are talking about here.
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in the matter.
That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why choose arbitrarily?
Because we have no choice. You don't choose to obey the law, you have to do it or you get stopped.
What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And says who?
The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law. But I don't find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's just one example though. There are an infinite number of them.
Well, yes, we make an exception for things that don't significantly add to the article, which that wouldn't. People have a pretty good idea of what a beheading looks like, so you don't really need to show them. I guess that is somewhat arbitrary, but there are exceptions to every rule.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this point.
Generally (by my understanding) mens rea means you knew what you were doing, it doesn't require you to know that it was illegal.
Furthermore, I
don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been
charged
with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
Why are those the only jurisdictions relevant? I thought the only relevant jurisdiction was Florida.
UK law is relevant because it is UK law that has prompted the censorship. UK law may not be relevant to our decision on whether or not to include the image, but it is relevant to the discussion.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not
equal
moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously, though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits
of
content.
Oh, sure, we need to decide what is acceptable in terms of notability and verifiability, that's not the same as deciding what is morally acceptable which is what we are talking about here.
What are notability and verifiability but decisions of what is morally acceptable?
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in the matter.
That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why choose arbitrarily?
Because we have no choice. You don't choose to obey the law, you have to do it or you get stopped.
Wikipedia certainly chooses what jurisdiction to base itself in.
What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And says who?
The [image of the] beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida
law. But I don't
find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's
just
one example though. There are an infinite number of them.
Well, yes, we make an exception for things that don't significantly add to the article, which that wouldn't. People have a pretty good idea of what a beheading looks like, so you don't really need to show them. I guess that is somewhat arbitrary, but there are exceptions to every rule.
The exact same argument could be made for the Virgin Killer album as for the Nick Berg beheading image. The image itself was the cause of controversy, and the controversy could not be completely understood without seeing the actual image.
Anyway, my point in bringing this up was not to argue about the Nick Berg image or the VK one. It was to give an example of something I consider legal but not acceptable, which you requested.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this
point.
Generally (by my understanding) mens rea means you knew what you were doing, it doesn't require you to know that it was illegal.
There are different levels of mens rea, but such a case would likely fail on all such levels. I don't think you can prove that a record shop owner even knew that he was in possession of that album. As for knowledge of the contents of the album, again, I don't think you can prove that a shop owner knows the contents of all his albums. And on top of that, I'm not a legal expert, but I would think there would be some leeway given for the grey-area nature of this particular album.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this
point.
Generally (by my understanding) mens rea means you knew what you were doing, it doesn't require you to know that it was illegal.
There are different levels of mens rea, but such a case would likely fail on all such levels. I don't think you can prove that a record shop owner even knew that he was in possession of that album. As for knowledge of the contents of the album, again, I don't think you can prove that a shop owner knows the contents of all his albums. And on top of that, I'm not a legal expert, but I would think there would be some leeway given for the grey-area nature of this particular album.
What shopkeeper doesn't know what stock he has? And we're not talking about the contents, we're talking about the cover, it's hard to miss what's on the cover of an album.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law.
This goes without saying, but obviously I'm talking about the image, and not the act.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself.
C'mon, what about the technical incompetence in the manner in which the Mediawiki software identifies unique individuals?
IP addresses aren't people.
Come now: We have accounts. We use 'having a unique IP' as a type of "proof of work". We'll gladly except XFF from their proxies if they'd bother sending it. Can you suggest anything better that we can do to prevent people from minting as many accounts as they like and causing trouble.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
wrote:
The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself.
C'mon, what about the technical incompetence in the manner in which the Mediawiki software identifies unique individuals?
IP addresses aren't people.
Come now: We have accounts.
Just barely.
We use 'having a unique IP' as a type of "proof of work".
I don't remember seeing the RFC for that.
We'll gladly except XFF from their proxies if they'd bother sending it.
Actually, there's no RFC for that either. While a common practice, you shouldn't rely on it.
Can you suggest anything better that we can do to prevent people from minting as many accounts as they like and causing trouble.
You could require an email address...
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
Can you suggest anything better that we can do to prevent people from minting as many accounts as they like and causing trouble.
You could require an email address...
Would not have the desired effect. Do you agree or do I need to make a point by mailbombing you from 10,000 email addresses? :)
IPs aren't a perfect proof of work but they are vastly better than email addresses. They are also painless for the user in the common case, unlike email.
We are allowing people to edit from the UK, you know — they have to now go through a painful registration process.
You've hopped on a pointless tangent in any case: We wouldn't have these problems if they blocked the image rather than the text. (Images are served from another IP that doesn't currently go through the censoring filters) They don't claim to want to block the text, if they did there would be more grounds to debate the wisdom of using IPs for anything.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
Can you suggest anything better that we can do to prevent people from minting as many accounts as they like and causing trouble.
You could require an email address...
Would not have the desired effect. Do you agree or do I need to make a point by mailbombing you from 10,000 email addresses? :)
No system is perfect. You asked for something better.
IPs aren't a perfect proof of work but they are vastly better than
email addresses.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, though.
They are also painless for the user in the common case, unlike email.
So they're fine for the common case. This isn't a common case.
I'm not saying that the ISPs doing this filtering are right, and the WMF relying on IP addresses is wrong. I'm just pointing out that you're both doing nonstandard things, and the two are colliding.
We are allowing people to edit from the UK, you know — they have to
now go through a painful registration process.
I didn't know that, nor do I think it matters. The point is, you (or someone) was trying to put the blame for the blocking of editors solely on the policies of the IWF, and that is completely misleading.
You've hopped on a pointless tangent in any case: We wouldn't have these problems if they blocked the image rather than the text. (Images are served from another IP that doesn't currently go through the censoring filters) They don't claim to want to block the text, if they did there would be more grounds to debate the wisdom of using IPs for anything.
Actually, their policy is to block the image and the page on which it resides. They screwed up on blocking the image, although that could be accidental and caused by another nonstandard practice of Wikipedia - having text pages that end with .jpg.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No system is perfect. You asked for something better.
I'm still waiting.
[snip]
So they're fine for the common case. This isn't a common case.
Which is why we have a registration process for these people. It still sucks.
I didn't know that, nor do I think it matters. The point is, you (or
Ah. Well that explains a good bit. :) The proxies that don't send XFF are soft-blocked. There is a process to request an account using toolserver which can see the users real IP because the toolserver is not censored. Once you have an account you are free to edit.
someone) was trying to put the blame for the blocking of editors solely on the policies of the IWF, and that is completely misleading.
Solely the IWF? No. The IWF is at fault for blocking the article rather than the image. The ISPs are at fault for not sending XFF.
XFF is the standard required behavior for transparent proxies. Stripping XFF when you do not prepend yourself is a "MUST" behavior, yet some of the proxies are not doing that. The ISPs are not RFC compliant.
We are doing the best we can to mitigate harm by having a procedure to create accounts (although painful) and still allowing editing from those IPs (although not 'anonymous'). The same can not be said for many of the other involved parties.
Actually, their policy is to block the image and the page on which it resides.
[snip]
Can you cite this to anything other than some mumbled comments in an interview? As far as I can tell IWF only claims to block "possibly illegal" materials, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the article text is possibly illegal. If they did it would add a rather nice book-burning wrinkle to the whole issue.
They screwed up on blocking the image, although that could be accidental and caused by another nonstandard practice of Wikipedia - having text pages that end with .jpg.
[snip]
It's simply a question of technical competence: To someone with reasonable technical competence the Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg page is very clearly not the image itself (as it has all that user interface stuff on it). I don't doubt that it's an error, but it's one they've been informed of since Sunday (and yes, they had a human addressing this on Sunday) and has not been resolved.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's unclear to me how widespread the distribution of this album cover is in the UK. Amazon UK doesn't seem to have it. Just how easy is it to find?
Amazon.co.uk did until Monday morning. And we have reports of it being in high street record shops. It's also widely available on the internet in general.
2008/12/9 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Actually, their policy is to block the image and the page on which it resides.
Can you cite this to anything other than some mumbled comments in an interview? As far as I can tell IWF only claims to block "possibly illegal" materials, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the article text is possibly illegal. If they did it would add a rather nice book-burning wrinkle to the whole issue.
That's what the IWF's been consistently asserting to the press, that's what their rep said on Radio 4 Today when I was on and that's what many journalists have said to me that the IWF said to them. Given this, I feel confident in stating that the IWF really believe that they are required to block the page the image is on.
- d.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's what the IWF's been consistently asserting to the press, that's what their rep said on Radio 4 Today when I was on and that's what many journalists have said to me that the IWF said to them. Given this, I feel confident in stating that the IWF really believe that they are required to block the page the image is on.
Do they believe it is a technical limitation (it's not, if they think this we need to educate them harder) or that its their purpose?
If the latter, how do we get that better featured in the media... I think it's outrageous.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's what the IWF's been consistently asserting to the press, that's what their rep said on Radio 4 Today when I was on and that's what many journalists have said to me that the IWF said to them. Given this, I feel confident in stating that the IWF really believe that they are required to block the page the image is on.
Do they believe it is a technical limitation (it's not, if they think this we need to educate them harder) or that its their purpose?
I'm sure the organization consists of people with a whole spectrum of technical knowledge.
Why doesn't Wikipedia provide a page without the image on it, so that it doesn't get blocked? A little too hard-headed, maybe?
2008/12/9 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's what the IWF's been consistently asserting to the press, that's what their rep said on Radio 4 Today when I was on and that's what many journalists have said to me that the IWF said to them. Given this, I feel confident in stating that the IWF really believe that they are required to block the page the image is on.
Do they believe it is a technical limitation (it's not, if they think this we need to educate them harder) or that its their purpose? If the latter, how do we get that better featured in the media... I think it's outrageous.
They spoke as though they thought it was a technical requirement. It appears the IWF largely don't know how computers work.
- d.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
They screwed up on blocking the image, although that could be accidental and caused by another nonstandard practice of Wikipedia -
having
text pages that end with .jpg.
[snip]
It's simply a question of technical competence: To someone with reasonable technical competence the Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg page is very clearly not the image itself (as it has all that user interface stuff on it). I don't doubt that it's an error, but it's one they've been informed of since Sunday (and yes, they had a human addressing this on Sunday) and has not been resolved.
Right now the whole thing is under review. I'd imagine they're not extending the block to new domain names for exactly this reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if a whole lot more gets blocked *if* their review reiterates their original decision.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's unclear to me how widespread the distribution of this album cover is
in
the UK. Amazon UK doesn't seem to have it. Just how easy is it to find?
Amazon.co.uk did until Monday morning. And we have reports of it being in high street record shops. It's also widely available on the internet in general.
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
They probably removed it for the same reason Channel 4 News blurred the image when they showed it - they are less idealistic than we are and prefer a quiet life. For Amazon, I completely support that, they exist to sell stuff, they have no reason to get involved in a censorship debate. I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon
US
done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
They probably removed it for the same reason Channel 4 News blurred the image when they showed it - they are less idealistic than we are and prefer a quiet life.
I don't think it has anything to do with "idealism", unless you assert that an ideals are necessarily in conflict with what's practical.
For Amazon, I completely support that, they exist to sell stuff, they have no reason to get involved in a censorship debate.
In other words, they are equally idealistic, they just have ideals which are compatible with reality.
I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
How do you know that they didn't consult with their legal team and their legal team told them not to do it? Not everyone has Mike Godwin for their legal advisor, you know.
I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
How do you know that they didn't consult with their legal team and their legal team told them not to do it? Not everyone has Mike Godwin for their legal advisor, you know.
Because if their legal team said the image was illegal they wouldn't have gone into a shop and bought a copy? Viewing the image on the internet is one thing, actually buying it is quite another - I doubt they would have done that if they knew it was illegal.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
How do you know that they didn't consult with their legal team and their legal team told them not to do it? Not everyone has Mike Godwin for
their
legal advisor, you know.
Because if their legal team said the image was illegal they wouldn't have gone into a shop and bought a copy? Viewing the image on the internet is one thing, actually buying it is quite another - I doubt they would have done that if they knew it was illegal.
For mere possession of a small number of level 1 images, the suggested penalty is a fine. Penalties for distribution are much harsher.
Anyway, I see Jimbo has commented on this saying exactly what I was trying to say. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=256...
"I would recommend to the community that we go back and take a hard look at whether we ought to be keeping this based on our own principles, if it is in fact likely to be in violation of the law in the UK and (especially) US. As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography. So then the question becomes: does this image fit the definition under (especially) US law, or the law of any particularly relevant countries (UK). That is a question of judgment of fact that I do not think has been looked at sufficiently."
2008/12/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
They probably removed it for the same reason Channel 4 News blurred the image when they showed it - they are less idealistic than we are and prefer a quiet life. For Amazon, I completely support that, they exist to sell stuff, they have no reason to get involved in a censorship debate. I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
The guy had it on his computer in the background. I wonder if anyone will report the URL for the Channel 4 news "play again" to the IWF.
- d.
2008/12/9 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/12/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
They probably removed it for the same reason Channel 4 News blurred the image when they showed it - they are less idealistic than we are and prefer a quiet life. For Amazon, I completely support that, they exist to sell stuff, they have no reason to get involved in a censorship debate. I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.
The guy had it on his computer in the background. I wonder if anyone will report the URL for the Channel 4 news "play again" to the IWF.
It looked to me like they had made sure the depth of focus was such that you couldn't see it, though.
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's unclear to me how widespread the distribution of this album cover is
in
the UK. Amazon UK doesn't seem to have it. Just how easy is it to find?
Amazon.co.uk did until Monday morning. And we have reports of it being in high street record shops. It's also widely available on the internet in general.
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
It should also be noted that this album cover has been continuously available in stores in the UK for 32 years. No one has been prosecuted, and it has never been banned. This strongly suggests the image is not illegal.
The IWF also stated that they blocked Wikipedia (although the image is available on plenty of other sites) for "pragmatic" reasons. Read into that what you will.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Right now the whole thing is under review.
[snip]
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Right now the whole thing is under review.
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
"See, proof that the IWF system works"
Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that decision, though I doubt they will.
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Right now the whole thing is under review.
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
"See, proof that the IWF system works"
Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that decision, though I doubt they will.
They have explained it on their website (http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm). The relevant bit is:
"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list."
Also interesting is:
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
If they'd asked, we could have told them that would happen... at least they realise it now and will hopefully take that into account in future.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Right now the whole thing is under review.
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
"See, proof that the IWF system works"
Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that decision, though I doubt they will.
They have explained it on their website (http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm). The relevant bit is:
"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list."
Wow, that's exactly the type of explanation I was looking for. I'm going to hold off on deciding whether or not I agree with it.
Also interesting is:
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
If they'd asked, we could have told them that would happen... at least they realise it now and will hopefully take that into account in future.
I'm not sure if I disagree with their conclusion, or disagree with their objective. I think this incident has at least had the potential to encourage productive dialogue about this problem.
Of course, they probably see the issue in a completely different way than I do anyway, especially if their goal is to minimize the availability of the images, and not to minimize the actual victimization of children.
Talk about waffling - it's illegal, inappropriate and in bad taste, but, what they hay - it's been there for 32 years so we're not going to do anything about it. Leave it to the UK. I wonder what they would have done if it had been a picture of Lady Di?
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:52 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Right now the whole thing is under review.
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
"See, proof that the IWF system works"
Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that decision, though I doubt they will.
They have explained it on their website (http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm). The relevant bit is:
"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list."
Also interesting is:
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
If they'd asked, we could have told them that would happen... at least they realise it now and will hopefully take that into account in future.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon US done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
One high street retailer, zaavi (or whatever they're called), took a compromise - they covered the image with a "click this to view, you must be over 18" clickthrough, since it was considered offensive.
Unfortunately, the image they were screening... was the entirely unremarkable black outer casing.
http://www.zavvi.co.uk/productdetails.jsf?code=779728
It's hard not to get the impression impression some people may be reacting to the fuss rather than the actual issue :-)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I'll hold off on speculating on *why* Amazon UK took it down (has Amazon
US
done so as well?). But good for them that they did so.
One high street retailer, zaavi (or whatever they're called), took a compromise - they covered the image with a "click this to view, you must be over 18" clickthrough, since it was considered offensive.
Unfortunately, the image they were screening... was the entirely unremarkable black outer casing.
http://www.zavvi.co.uk/productdetails.jsf?code=779728
It's hard not to get the impression impression some people may be reacting to the fuss rather than the actual issue :-)
Some? I'd say most. Child pornography is not illegal because it's offensive.
Anthony wrote:
I'm not aware of any other images of child sexual abuse in Wikipedia.
How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cupidon.jpg
Ting
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I'm not aware of any other images of child sexual abuse in Wikipedia.
How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cupidon.jpg
While I guess that technically fits my description (if we can know that an actual subject was posed for that painting), that is neither a photograph nor a pseudo-photograph, so wouldn't fall under the purview of the IWF.
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Isabell Long isabell121@gmail.com wrote:
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.35.htm
They block:
- images of child sexual abuse* hosted anywhere in the world
- criminally obscene content hosted in the UK
- incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK
My understanding is that for material of the first class in the UK, they get it taken down rather than (possibly in addition to?) filtering - it can't be legally hosted here anyway, so if they've found it they may as well move on to stage two!
However, whilst their remit does encompass "normal" criminally obscene material (as it were) and the more malignant types of racial hatred, it's not clear what that means in practice. The reports I've read seem to indicate that they don't actively do anything about these types of material, perhaps due to lack of resources or of clear guidelines on what they should be dealing with, and instead concentrate (almost?) entirely on child abuse material.
Of course, it's hard to say withy any degree of certainty, because the blockees tend not to issue press releases on a regular basis...
On 12/8/08, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil wrote:
So, certain laws apply without regard to things not in control of the victim. In this case, a minor child was exploited for money. Someone should have protected the child from such a consequence as this.
And arguably someone should have required Daniel Radcliffe to keep his pants on, advised Brooke Shields not to pursue an acting career, and refused to even consider buying Miley Cyrus a cell phone.
You can call it "bad parenting" for sure, but painting any of it as "child porn" would only cheapen the term and hurl a belittling insult at actual victims exploited for actual child porn.
The first amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, and exceptions are not made on a whim. Yes, certain forms of pornography are prohibited, but the underlying moral basis for this isn't that you and I and most other people find them offensive/distasteful, rather because they are presumed to be exploiting the victim of a sex crime.
Surely filming the rape of an adult or the murder of any person would be illegal for similar reasons if done for personal gain (as opposed to catching it on a security camera or an 8-mm Zoomatic[1]) Of course there will always exist really weird people who are turned on by things like that (or for any other thing you can think of) but any attempt to legislate that would border on thought-crime, a territory where the potential for creep[2] is infinitely greater than speech-crime.
In this case, in the country under scrutiny, there are laws about what is and isn't decent. There are mechanisms for making the laws, defining them and prosecuting them. Whatever, you, me or anyone else thinks, in the country of interest, this either is or isn't against the law. If it's against the law, it shouldn't be there. If is isn't against the law be allowed without question. If it is one of those things and someone thinks it ought to be the other, then they should take it through the process used by that country to change their laws.
(In countries which have such a process, that is, but yes...)
I agree, all laws should be tested (to the extent that this can be done without causing actual harm to another human being) and amended or repealed when demonstrated to make no sense. Maybe some court will decide that the image is illegal under U.K. law, or maybe they won't, but it doesn't really matter as Wikipedia need not and should not be manipulated by foreign censorship.
If the cover art instead contained a naked swastika obscured by broken glass the album would have been banned in its country of origin[3], but acceptable in most other places. If the cover art depicted Mohammed in any state of dress obscured by broken glass it would probably be banned in predominantly Islamic countries. If it contained a masturbating nun obscured by broken glass it would (assuming she is an adult) be acceptable in the U.S., the U.K. and Germany but banned in New Zealand[4]. In the PRC the album art could be banned for having one or more colours in common with the flag of Tibet (or for having the same aspect ratio when distributed as a cassette, or for any other cock-and-bull reason, or none at all, seriously).
Some will argue that the English Wikipedia should bend more willingly for the benefit of contributors in English-speaking countries. Frankly I'm not going to buy that because having English an official language is not a guarantor (or prerequisite) of reasonable human rights or censorship laws. Just look at Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Singapore, or the Sudan.
I can almost guarantee that any complaints from these regimes would be file-13'd without a second thought. Is Britain so special? India and Nigeria have more English speakers than Britain. I realise they have a bit more credibility than the other countries I mentioned but would anyone take them seriously if they find some enwiki content to declare illegal? Probably not.
—C.W.
[1] Unless positioned on the grassy knoll, which would suggest conspiracy. [2] As in "instruction creep" not "being creepy", no pun intended. [3] But it would be okay for Germans to view it on the English Wikipedia as it is displayed for the scholarly purpose of informing readers about the album, not to promote Nazism or the album. Still wouldn't appear on the German Wikipedia due to their unrelated rejection of "fair use". [4] Cradle of Filth, 1997.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/8/08, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil wrote:
So, certain laws apply without regard to things not in control of the
victim.
In this case, a minor child was exploited for money. Someone should have protected the child from such a consequence as this.
You can call it "bad parenting" for sure, but painting any of it as "child porn" would only cheapen the term and hurl a belittling insult at actual victims exploited for actual child porn.
Sorry, I disagree with you there. Yes, there are worse abuses of children out there, but that fact doesn't in itself exclude this image from the definition of "child porn".
The first amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, and exceptions are not made on a whim. Yes, certain forms of pornography are prohibited, but the underlying moral basis for this isn't that you and I and most other people find them offensive/distasteful, rather because they are presumed to be exploiting the victim of a sex crime.
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as defined generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as defined generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd.
No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the context of such a law.
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as defined generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd.
No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the context of such a law.
Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up to a jury.)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/9 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as
defined
generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd.
No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the context of such a law.
Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up to a jury.)
That's not what I said, although I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as
defined
generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd.
No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the context of such a law.
Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up to a jury.)
That's not what I said, although I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.
What's not what you said? And what distinction? I'm trying to make the point that there is no obvious definition of lewdness and plenty of people don't consider the Virgin Killer picture to be lewd (highly distasteful for an album cover, sure, not not lewd), seemly including the UK police (and the US police, although I don't know if that version of the cover is still on sale in the US so it just be a matter of times changing and were it released now the police would act).
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as
defined
generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.
Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd.
No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the context of such a law.
Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up to a jury.)
That's not what I said, although I don't understand the distinction
you're
trying to make.
What's not what you said? And what distinction? I'm trying to make the point that there is no obvious definition of lewdness and plenty of people don't consider the Virgin Killer picture to be lewd (highly distasteful for an album cover, sure, not not lewd), seemly including the UK police (and the US police, although I don't know if that version of the cover is still on sale in the US so it just be a matter of times changing and were it released now the police would act).
The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that.
The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law.
The definition in the context of UK law is simply what a "reasonable person" considers indecent, there is no set definition. The sentencing guidelines talk about "erotic posing" (as the least serious form of indecency, there are obviously more serious forms that are far easier to define).
I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that.
My definition of "erotic" would require there to be a sexual element. Nudity is not automatically sexual, there would need to be something about the pose which could be reasonably associated with sex.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that.
My definition of "erotic" would require there to be a sexual element. Nudity is not automatically sexual, there would need to be something about the pose which could be reasonably associated with sex.
Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose. The very title and theme of the song they were depicting is "Virgin Killer". The image fails to be "sexy" for the sole reason that it's a prepubescent making the pose.
On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that.
My definition of "erotic" would require there to be a sexual element. Nudity is not automatically sexual, there would need to be something about the pose which could be reasonably associated with sex.
Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose.
In the US, that doesn't matter, if it's representing sexuality (not sex acts).... *but* it's also art.
The "shatter" is what really brings the work together, uniting the awkward image of a young girl in a sexualized pose beyond her years, with the shatter effect conveying a sense of damage, a sense of something about innocence being permanently broken. Centering the shatter on her genital area further drives the point home about how we hold (as western society) the concept of "virginity" to be focused on the genitals, rather than the mind.
In the US, we protect art.
I'm not sure why people are so scared, or fearful, of artwork that depicts a shattering of innocence, of permanently damaging young girls.
I have my suspicions.
-Bop
On 12/9/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose.
For better or worse schools tend to consider this definition of sexual posing an acceptable way to generate school spirit. Well yes, cheerleaders are clothed, but usually at the minimum level allowed by whatever dress code regulation has been published by the school board.
On the other hand a pose which involves physical contact of private parts (actual or suggested, such as "reaching toward...") would very reasonably be "associated with sex", regardless of whether clothing is worn or whether the naughtiness is visible to the camera.
The very title and theme of the song they were depicting is "Virgin Killer". The image fails to be "sexy" for the sole reason that it's a prepubescent making the pose.
I doubt a title or caption accompanying an image could affect the legal status of the image. I don't know whether maybe the creators estimated that this was the most offensive picture they could get away with, or maybe they produced what they felt was necessary to convey a particular message and consulted lawyers only after the fact, but it doesn't really matter.
While it may in theory be possible to collect legal material and arrange it in an illegal way I don't see that happening here. Sure, it's quite tasteless and not something I'd want my daughter involved with at any age, but that doesn't mean it's pornographic or otherwise worthy of censorship.
—C.W.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/9/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose.
For better or worse schools tend to consider this definition of sexual posing an acceptable way to generate school spirit. Well yes, cheerleaders are clothed, but usually at the minimum level allowed by whatever dress code regulation has been published by the school board.
On the other hand a pose which involves physical contact of private parts (actual or suggested, such as "reaching toward...") would very reasonably be "associated with sex", regardless of whether clothing is worn or whether the naughtiness is visible to the camera.
The law I was referring to included physical contact of private parts and "lewd exhibitionism" as two separate possibilities, suggesting that one does not imply the other. And this makes sense. Sure, a cheerleader might make sexual poses while fully clothed, and this isn't considered a lewd performance. But the fact that the cheerleader is fully clothed *makes a difference*.
The very title and theme of the song they were depicting is "Virgin Killer".
The image fails to be "sexy" for the sole reason that it's a prepubescent making the pose.
I doubt a title or caption accompanying an image could affect the legal status of the image.
It can certainly lend evidence of the state of mind of the photographer who abused this young girl.
While it may in theory be possible to collect legal material and arrange it in an illegal way I don't see that happening here. Sure, it's quite tasteless and not something I'd want my daughter involved with at any age, but that doesn't mean it's pornographic or otherwise worthy of censorship.
There's obviously a line to be drawn between a tasteless act and a criminal one. Apparently you are of the opinion that a criminal act requires physical contact of private parts. I strongly disagree.
I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her work in a strip club? Is that a decision that a girl and her parents should be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in and stop? If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?
On 12/10/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her work in a strip club? Is that a decision that a girl and her parents should be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in and stop? If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?
I wouldn't call it a sex crime but there are in fact laws against employing minors in a "sexually-oriented business", which is probably a good thing.
It is possible that some jurisdictions may classify the strip club operator as a sex offender in if convicted of knowingly hiring a minor, I really have no idea. Revocation of business licence would be almost certain.
And yes I do agree that it would be bad parenting on the mother's part. Same with the album cover and most of the other examples I mentioned. Daughter could probably be taken into state custody and foster care if a certain burden of proof is met, I really don't know.
If any of these prosecutions occur it will be due to laws which already exist, many of which are written in response to specific incidents. Often they are known legally by a cryptic number but more commonly as "So-and-so's Law" in remembrance of a famous victim and as part of a grass-roots campaign to keep the same thing from happening again.
That's the way it should work, and I support this. But enforcing laws we think should exist would not hold up in court, at least not in any country which values freedom.
—C.W.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/10/08, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her work in a strip club? Is that a decision that a girl and her parents
should
be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in and stop? If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?
I wouldn't call it a sex crime but there are in fact laws against employing minors in a "sexually-oriented business", which is probably a good thing.
I'd say it's definitely a good thing, and that those laws are as I mentioned before, "Promoting a sexual performance by a child".
I don't see why it shouldn't be called a sex crime, though.
It is possible that some jurisdictions may classify the strip club
operator as a sex offender in if convicted of knowingly hiring a minor, I really have no idea. Revocation of business licence would be almost certain.
It's ironic you should say that, because when I googled for {strip club child} the very first line of the very first result was "The city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under 18." This was referring to a strip club which employed a 12-year-old. Two coworkers were charged with "felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club".
And yes I do agree that it would be bad parenting on the mother's
part. Same with the album cover and most of the other examples I mentioned. Daughter could probably be taken into state custody and foster care if a certain burden of proof is met, I really don't know.
If any of these prosecutions occur it will be due to laws which already exist, many of which are written in response to specific incidents. Often they are known legally by a cryptic number but more commonly as "So-and-so's Law" in remembrance of a famous victim and as part of a grass-roots campaign to keep the same thing from happening again.
That's the way it should work, and I support this. But enforcing laws we think should exist would not hold up in court, at least not in any country which values freedom.
Of course we should enforce laws we think should exist. We should make them laws first, though. As for Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia has a duty to not distribute content which violates laws we think should exist, regardless of whether or not the law does exist.
In any case, laws against "sexual performance of the child" and "distribution of child pornography" do exist.
You know, I think the precise details of child exploitation law is a topic best discussed elsewhere. This discussion has gone way past anything that is actually relevant to Wikipedia.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
You know, I think the precise details of child exploitation law is a topic best discussed elsewhere. This discussion has gone way past anything that is actually relevant to Wikipedia.
This discussion is quite obviously relevant to Wikipedia. I personally don't think the precise details of child exploitation law aren't particularly relevant, but that's because I think Wikipedia's principles should be based on ethics and not on the law. However, I believe you were the one who suggested that Wikipedia's inclusion standards should be based solely on the law, so rather than simply dismiss this idea I thought we should examine the law. I also think there are a number of things we can learn from the law. The law isn't perfect, but I think most of us can agree that child pornography is something that should be restricted. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion over what child pornography is, and why it is illegal.
Anthony wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Of course we should enforce laws we think should exist.
So do I. So let's start by enforcing the long overdue law against pushing extreme prudishness on innocent mailing lists. So please bugger off, and do your soapboxing in Hyde park, or some equally suited location.
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform.
I take it you've never raised children.
When they're young, convincing them to actually put on *any clothes* is a problem at times.
Really. (Ages 3-6 is a blast, but it can be a tad embarrassing at times)
...
Then, just when you think you finally have them dressed on a fairly regular basis, they discover a new fashion wave, or style, or trend, and next thing you know, they want to show ankles (or god forbid, knees), cut their hair, shave their legs, bathe, etc.
Hopefully, none of the girls I've had a hand in raising will *ever* discover what "boys" are, I shudder at the thought.
(For those of you reading this from other cultures and languages, this is sarcasm. Except for the age 3-6 part.)
-Bop
2008/12/10 Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform.
I take it you've never raised children. When they're young, convincing them to actually put on *any clothes* is a problem at times. Really. (Ages 3-6 is a blast, but it can be a tad embarrassing at times)
Anthony has kids in this range, so perhaps his were better behaved ;-) My daughter is always trying to put on more clothes over the ones she's wearing, bangles, hats, bags ... she's going to grow up to be a drag queen.
- d.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:41 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/10 Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform.
I take it you've never raised children. When they're young, convincing them to actually put on *any clothes* is a problem at times. Really. (Ages 3-6 is a blast, but it can be a tad embarrassing at times)
Anthony has kids in this range, so perhaps his were better behaved ;-)
0 and 2, actually, but there's a big difference between a child running around naked at home and a young girl posing nude for an album cover. The claim that "nudity" is the only criterion for "child porn" is a strawman, or at least, it's not the claim I'm making. Someone from one of those "other sites" emailed me a link to an image on Wikipedia of a bunch of naked boys jumping into a lake (I think that's what it was, I didn't look at it very long), and I commented that such an image clearly was *not* child pornography (though I do still think it's inappropriate for the Wikipedia article on [[boy]]).
One problem is that all these distinctions are highly dependent on context. Let me give you examples.
If a parent takes one photograph of a little boy or girl doing silly things half-naked, this is "cute". If, however, a whole series of such photographs is sold online, then it's child porn.
If one sees "Venus chastising Cupid" in a museum, this is classical art and they take groups of children to see it. If one sees a manga drawing of a naked, buxom woman, spanking a naked child with the buttocks turned to the eye of the viewer (which is an exact factual description of the above classical art), then this is child pornography.
If some random Internet user writes stories involving minors getting raped, mutilated and other gorish stuff, that person risks prosecutions in many countries including the US. If Alain Robbe-Grillet, member of the French Academy, respected writer, does so, then the book is sold in all good libraries (possibly with a word of warning to the reader).
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.frwrote:
One problem is that all these distinctions are highly dependent on context. Let me give you examples.
I don't see how that's a problem, since I believe that all ethical decisions are dependent on context.
If a parent takes one photograph of a little boy or girl doing silly
things half-naked, this is "cute". If, however, a whole series of such photographs is sold online, then it's child porn.
If one sees "Venus chastising Cupid" in a museum, this is classical art and they take groups of children to see it. If one sees a manga drawing of a naked, buxom woman, spanking a naked child with the buttocks turned to the eye of the viewer (which is an exact factual description of the above classical art), then this is child pornography.
I'm not sure that you're correct with regard to UK law in either of those situations. In any case, I don't see the point of this. A photograph (or, in the UK, a pseudo-photograph) of child sexual abuse is child porn. "A little boy or girl doing silly things half-naked" is not child sexual abuse, and a manga drawing is neither a photograph nor a pseudo-photograph.
DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS wrote:
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Pornography is not a left-right issue. I've seen plenty of moralistic posturing on both sides of that divide. There are also plenty of right-wingers who would consider anti-pornography laws as government getting involved where it doesn't belong.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS wrote:
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Pornography is not a left-right issue. I've seen plenty of moralistic posturing on both sides of that divide. There are also plenty of right-wingers who would consider anti-pornography laws as government getting involved where it doesn't belong.
Ec
I've also seen left-wingers as rabid anti-pornographers. Some feminists, as an example, cite pornography as promotional to the degradation of women, and as something that contributes to inequality between the genders.
Cary
Hoi, At one time the censor decided to chop of the "nasty" bits from Roman and Greek statues, the Vatican museum proves how much damage censors have done in the past. The good news is that this is in your face censorship. I hope that this shoots these nasties in the foot by providing a backlash against these indiscriminate censorship. At the same time, there is a good opportunity for people to realise how important Wikipedia is to them and this may benefit the WMF financially and the fight against indiscriminate censorship. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org