[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Marc Riddell]

> 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&#entry2048
>> 46
>> 
>> 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.

on 11/17/09 5:37 AM, Andrew Garrett at agarrett at wikimedia.org wrote:
> 
> 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

> 
Yes. Very well said, Andrew.

Marc Riddell, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy