[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[teun spaans]

"It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the
Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or
usage"
Frankly, I dont think that is what I read in PMs post which started this
discussion.

In many countries it is the responsibility of parents for their childs
behaviour, inlcuding their behavious on internet.
However, also in many countries it is the responsibility of volunteer
organizations to that under age volunteers do while they are active as a
volunteer for that organization. In that respect Wikimedia foundation may be
held responsible for what minors during  their vi\olunteer acticvities for
wikimedia do and see.

Viewn as such, it might indeed be a responsibility for the foundation, and
not for an individual wiki.

i wish you health and happiness,
teun spaans

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett at wikimedia.org>wrote:

>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>