On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Keith Old wrote:
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.
This suggestion is over the top. Who makes the decision about whether some site is illegal? Who verifies that? It's frightening to think that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind of decision that would affect us all.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What is over the top about it? We have admins making decisions everyday to remove copyvios which are in violation of the law. We have people who remove perceived link spam which isn't problematic legally but we deem inappropriate to list on our site.
I am talking about links to a cache on the then LS studios article to material that had allegedly been the subject of an FBI raid. I removed it and nominated it for deletion. Why would we want to keep these links on our servers either in an article or on a talk page?
We need to take interests in what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Having links to illegal material is clearly, in my view, not in the best interests of Wikipedia. I attached links to an international protocol so that it was not based on standards in one country in international law.
Regards
Keith Old