[Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects

[private musings]

( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-)
It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the
concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been
completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the
communities, might be able to do - lemme give it a shot :-)
There's obviously an ongoing issue of some sort for Andrew, as a 'dev' to
write above 'the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely
uncomfortable' - could you (or Andrew) confirm that the appropriate
authorities were contacted in the case of child pornography being uploaded -
and would we agree that this is something the foundation can help facilitate
as oppose to responsibility lying with the communities?
while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media
depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not "real" child pornography, and
is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? - In the context
of andrew requesting discussion with counsel as oppose to each other, it
might be good to clear that up?
The bottom line is that I think the foundation can provide leadership to the
communities, as well as specific software adjustments, perhaps including
things like 'click here to say you're 18', or some sort of 'descriptive
image tagging' - what I hope I'm showing by highlighting the volume and
nature of much media on wmf projects is the fact that for a variety of
reasons guidance and leadership from the foundation would be a good thing
:-) (please note that I'm not asking for hundreds of images or articles to
be deleted, nor am I claiming the wmf is nasty, evil and depraved, nor that
looking at folking putting bits and bobs into each other (and themselves!)
is necessary a bad thing - just that discussion of regulation is a good
idea!)
Perhaps worthy of note also is the nature of project usage, as another
commons user put it semi-rhetorically; 'are we becoming a systematic
pornography source?' (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=33968683)
These stat.s; http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ seem to
say 'yes' - there's a clear use of commons as porn source in my view, and I
don't think commons as 'the best porn you can get at school, or in the
library' is a good look for wmf :-) - mileage may vary of course, but thems
my thoughts.....
Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ
(department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything
bad was going on.... does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff
here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically?
(would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with
them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that
would be a shame)
best,
Peter,
PM.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/1/19 Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com>:
>
> > Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation
> > intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently
> reviewing
> > and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than
> > community consensus is unclear to me --
>
>
> It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go
> away.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>