[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Andrew Garrett]

On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved  
> in
> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably
> describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg').
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry204846
>
> I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see  
> better
> governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we  
> need to
> talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're  
> overdue.
>
> I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue  
> - is
> there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or  
> could I
> just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory
> board's ear to raise this with them.

You just won't give up this topic, will you?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate  
for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity  
and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent,  
irrational and entirely lacking in substance.

I'm also unsure how you propose to define "sexually explicit". The  
definitions under law are elaborate, attempting to make distinctions  
that would be irrelevant to any negative impact on children, if one  
existed. Are images of the statue of David, the Mannekin Pis or the  
Ecstacy of Theresa deserving of such restrictions? What about the  
detailed frescoes of sexual acts displayed in brothels and living  
rooms in ancient Pompeii and Herculaneum? How are those distinct from  
the image you've used as an example, and how is that distinction  
relevant to whatever supposed harm you are claiming to children?

If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on  
such images, then those children should be supervised in their  
internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the  
internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor)  
believe is appropriate.

It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the  
Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or  
usage, and certainly not to make arbitrary rules regarding said usage  
on the basis of a single culture's sensibilities on children and  
sexuality, especially sensibilities as baseless and harmful as this one.

--
Andrew Garrett
agarrett at wikimedia.org
http://werdn.us/