[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

private musings thepmaccount at gmail.com
Wed Oct 20 23:10:05 UTC 2010

There's probably an important and interesting 'meta' point to make
about whether or not lists such as this one actually have utility in
forwarding discussion and resolution,or whether we prefer to sort of
talk to ourselves, then let things slide... but I'm going for the

I really just wanted to follow up the issue of a systemic approach to
permanent deletion of material which may be illegal on WMF servers -
stewards and oversighters on commons can still access an image of a 16
year old girl masturbating - 9 months after I first notified this

my initial post -

image of 16 year old girl masturbating -

Now I would ask Mike if that's legal or not, but I can't seem to get
hold of him - I've previously notified board members on meta with no
response, and hope it's now appropriate to copy Sue on this to ensure
all are at least aware of the lack of action here....



On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
> One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like --
> * any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons
> * there are no identifiable people in the image
> * etc.
> It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community.
> Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content
> Andreas
>> Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
>> Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming
>> educational value,
>> should be subject to really quite stringent checking of
>> provenance.
>> (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do
>> have pics
>> like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up
>> to the
>> level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are
>> supposed to be
>> a somewhat curated repository, after all.
>> The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given
>> it's a
>> BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe
>> reputational harm to
>> living persons - I am quite confident the community can
>> come up with
>> something workable that does the right thing but provides
>> suitable
>> examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the
>> academics of
>> the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and
>> categorised.
>> (cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is
>> not that versatile)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list