[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

[Mikkerpikker]

> I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal
> materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable
> third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be
> deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
> reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
>
> Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that
> are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
> accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other
> countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
>
> However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
> International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
> http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
>
> Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
> materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene
> it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of
> an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered
> to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>

Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no
reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very
serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.