Jimbo Wales exiles 'porn' from Wikiland

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/

by yread • 16 years ago

31 23 16 years ago

theregister.co.uk

ugh• 16 years ago

The big problem with any centralized deletion of porn is that there is no standard definition of porn. Commons should strive to only exclude images which can lead to legal problems and leave the decision which of the remaining images to use up to the different language Wikipedias.

Maybe that’s what they plan to do and I would have no problem with that. I would have a problem if they went above and beyond that.

buro9• 16 years ago

Even that would be a problem... legal problems according to what legal domain? What is acceptable in some US States is wildly different from what is acceptable in some EU countries.

The concern I have is greater than the definition of what is or is not pornographic, but it is the underlying notion that some entity feels that I should not see something, that a puritanical approach has come in at the top. To me this is the greater problem.

If we stick to legal definitions then we're in a much better position, even though the lack of a global legal system introduces technical issues about what is stored where, and what is available to whom (according to where they are) and the maintenance of that legal knowledge (that in one region the laws are X, Y and Z and that in another the laws are B, C and D).

ErrantX7• 16 years ago

That Sanger thing was just him trolling; I'm surprised it got the rise it has done... (there is no way those "etchings" would ever have been considered CP by a criminal prosecutor)

jacquesm• 16 years ago

They might not have been in the best taste though.

goatforce52• 16 years ago

FWIW, the UK police often get confused between art and child porn:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/25/artnews.art

ErrantX7• 16 years ago

There is a distinct difference between a "created" image and a photograph (which the suggestion in your link is).

The wood carvings are probably fine; you have to take a pragmatic approach at some point. Artistic (non-abusive) photography is also usually fine - I'm not sure what the outcome of that specific case was but I expect nothing came of it.

The point is to capture those abusing - or encouraging the abuse of - children. So you will find occasional contradictions and difficult distinctions.

goodside3• 16 years ago

The biggest criticism of this purge seems to be that the definition of pornography might have been slightly too restrictive. Some good images were lost that might not have been legally required to be removed.

So what?

The Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to toe the line, deciding for itself exactly what pornography will result in criminal prosecution and just keeping their fingers crossed that the State of Florida will agree with them. The laws on obscenity are complex and inconsistent. American citizens have been convicted of criminal obscenity for possessing drawings of children engaging in sex acts, whose production did not involve any actual child. Perfect discrimination between legal and illegal images is not possible, and they've decided that an error of unnecessarily deleting "good" pornography is preferable to an error of distributing illegal images of minors.

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004, and I can say from experience that child pornography is not some mythical boogieman. It does exist on WP, and it can go undetected for a surprisingly long time.

The most recent example I can think of is an article on a medical condition that involves as a symptom the swelling of the breasts in pre-pubescent girls. A photograph was added showing a very young girl standing topless with her eyes edited from the photo, showing the camera her prematurely large breasts. The image caption was a brief description saying that the girl was 13 years old, had the relevant medical condition, and that the uploader, whose username began with "Dr", took the photo himself in Brazil. Uploading this image was the user's only contribution, and he hasn't been seen since.

It was literally months before any editor looked closely enough at the situation to realize that this might not be fully kosher. This isn't because editors are lazy or naive. Wikipedia is a big place, and catching these things happens almost entirely by happenstance. Once the issue was raised on Media for Deletion, consensus was quick that it had to go. But while the image is gone from WP, it's more popular than ever elsewhere. A Google image search for the title of the article will reveal the image re-hosted across dozens of web sites, which is why I'm being so scarce on the details here.

The Foundation has to make a decision on whether preventing incidents like this is worth the downside of forbidding some pornography, the only redeeming feature of which is often that it isn't illegal, should be hosted on Wikimedia servers, exposing the Wales and the Board to the possibility of severe criminal penalties. We have no moral ground from which to accuse them of shirking their responsibilities if they decline.

AgileCyborg2• 16 years ago

The image you mention here only becomes porn-like due to its exposure to the non-medical mind. The image itself may not have been intended to be porn. His disappearance could be linked to simple fear from the irrational.

There must be an ethical and rational balance over the incredibly important aspects of research and science concerning the development of the young human.

Irrational social fear relating to any form of sexual development in the young can polarize legitimate scientific study in regards to youth psychology and physiology.

At some point one can cross from critical (and RATIONAL) exposition of credible threats and crimes to an absurd witch hunt which puts pedophiles behind every tree, image, or serious study.

Society already has a difficult enough time grasping how to cope with the sexual development of its young while at the same time horrified over scientific/medical exposition of said development.

timwiseman• 16 years ago

You make some interesting points. But let me respectfully point out that the vast majority of users of wikipedia have a"non-medical mind". Even the vast majority of people looking specifically for medical information on wikipedia are not and will never become professionals in the medical field.

It is probably best in terms of both using an abundance of caution in staying on the right side of the law and in keeping the image away from people that would see it in a non-medical light to keep things like that off of wikipedia. They may be perfectly fine on sites focused specifically on medical information and targetting primarily medical professionals, but wikipedia is not such a place.

goodside3• 16 years ago

You can argue all you want that the laws are not just. I agree fully. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether it's reasonable to expect the Foundation to expose themselves to (possibly unjust) prosecution by displaying images that they believe may be illegal or immoral. If they were facing criminal charges at this moment, I would be the first to say that they have done nothing wrong, but you cannot fault them for not wanting to risk the future of Wikipedia by fighting a legal battle (using donations provided by people who thought they were just helping support an encyclopedia) against laws that you and I think are unjust.

If you feel strongly to the contrary, I submit to you the following challenge. I will tell you how to obtain the image in question, provided you agree to display the image publicly on web space you own and control, in perpetuity until its removal is requested by either your hosting provider or legal authorities, with text below that states:

- Your full, legal name and basic contact information (e-mail address is fine)

- That the image was presented to you by sources unknown with the assertion that it depicts a 13-year-old girl

- That you believe the photograph was taken for the purposes of legitimate scientific study, but you admit there is at least some possibility that it was taken with the intent of pornographic distribution

- Any other information or disclaimers you think are relevant

Let me know if this works for you. If so, you're more principled than I am.

maxklein• 16 years ago

I don't get it - what's not kosher? I see topless young girls on the discovery channel quite often and the king of swazilands marriage had a lot of young topless girls dancing about.

goodside3• 16 years ago

The Discovery Channel didn't receive those images anonymously. If you sent them pictures of nude prepubescents and said they were were the wives of the King of Swazilands, they might not just take your word for it.

ErrantX7• 16 years ago

> It was literally months before any editor looked closely enough at the situation to realize that this might not be fully kosher.

It is fully kosher. That's not to say it is something that the Foundation may decide not to host - but from a legal perspective the image is absolutely fine.

(to put it into context if someone caught you with 500 or so similar images on your computer then you might get a slapped wrist - depending on whether any could be viewed as "sexual").

EDIT: is there a request for undelete link now? Or could you point me at the original MFD thread (privately if you like) and perhaps I could put in an "expert" view (if it would be useful).

AgileCyborg2• 16 years ago

>depending on whether any could be viewed as "sexual"

Society is chock full of prosecutors and citizens like the micro-brained David Cook who view almost anything 'natural' involving a youngster as 'sexual'.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child...

The subjectivity of this topic lends itself to egregious abuse if minds have been soaked in morality acid.

aw3c2• 16 years ago

A somehow distributed (to resist censorship) and encrypt (against problems with varying local legislation) wikipedia would not have problems like this.

kragen• 16 years ago

We can hope. It might also turn out that censors, irritated by the resistance, would criminalize participation in it.