[Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

jayen466 at yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> > but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> > criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> > content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
> > =
> 
> > Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide
> > what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
> > =
> 
> > MarianoC.-
> 
> 
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
> 
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> 
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent
> 
> The first is simply a requirement to comply with the law, while the second
> is a moral issue; we shouldn't host an image of a woman giving a blowjob
> for example if the woman has not given her consent to have the image upload=
> ed, and is unaware of its presence on Commons. Excluding those types
> of cases has nothing to do with the viewer experience; it has to do with
> protecting the foundation, and the privacy of the people depicted.
> 


You'll never get the weenies to vote give up images of blowjobs, so don't expect any consensus there. Also the Ethnographic get out will allow all the images of naked kids and adolescents that that the pervs can upload and FT2 will be there to defend. I bounced 8 accounts to flickr yesterday that were simply naked kids in 3rd world countries intermixed with Adult porn. All of which were deleted within an hour of the report.

The "Study of Controversial Content" lost the plot and is pretty much dead. No good will come from it.