[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

[David Gerard]

On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the
> problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a
> purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy
> development an important concern.


Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:

Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value,
should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance.
(Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics
like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the
level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be
a somewhat curated repository, after all.

The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a
BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to
living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with
something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable
examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of
the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.

(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)


- d.