[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 54, Issue 128

[LaraLove]

On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> > Peter Ansell wrote:
>  
>> > > I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a
>> > > firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
>> > > Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
>> > > essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
>>     
> >
> > Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of
> > child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the
> > pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the
> > photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
>   

> If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would
> be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the
> real issue. Is a child not worth zero risk? From the sounds of the
> posts it seems like the complaint was about her and not the child.
> Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though,
> including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a
> photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.

Of course the complaint is about me and not my kids. I'm not worried 
about the well-being of my kids being jeopardized by a couple pictures. 
Not in the least. What I'm upset about is your shameful behavior and the 
fact that the moderators of this list ignored it. And I'm now pissed 
about your excuse, which is so obviously fake. If you were concerned 
with our kids, you would have done more than make an underhanded "aside" 
comment on a list you knew we didn't subscribe to.

>> > > I
>> > > am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting
>> > > children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses 
>> child
>> > > on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the
>> > > risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
>>     
> >
> > Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more
> > sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law
> > wouldn't apply here anyway.
>   

> Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with
> commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos,
> there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child
> safety in Florida, US.

That's totally ridiculous. To say people shouldn't be able to upload 
images of their kids. That's just ridiculous. I let my kids play outside 
too, and I take them to the store with me. There is, of course, always 
the risk of them being kidnapped, and so I risk that when I take them 
out. I could shelter them in the house all the time, reducing that risk 
to near zero, but I don't. Does that also make me an irresponsible parent?

>> > > I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could
>> > > be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I
>> > > was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be
>> > > attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
>>     
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
>   

> It is a completely different culture in which people both get annoyed
> quickly and try to make scandals out of a few words, and in which
> parents are ultra-sensitive about their parenting styles. Thats the
> Australian part I was trying to get at. If someone here had thought to
> tell me that it could be offensive then I would have retracted the
> comment then and there. Now that I have thought about it I think the
> point of the comment, child safety considerations, is relevant still.
> If Florida doesn't give a stuff then I hope Wikipedia has a conscience
> to care outside of what is explicitly needed by law.

> Peter

First of all, this is yet again inappropriate. You just categorized a 
nation of people as easily annoyed, scandalous and ultra-sensitive. 
Second of all, I'm American. Pedro is British. Who's the Australian? 
You? If so, you just categorized two nations of people.

Regardless, you stated you apologized. That's inaccurate. A 
[[non-apology apology]] does not equal an apology.
Lara