Forum - View topic

NEWS: Wikipedia Co-Founder Reports 'Child Porn' in Wikimedia

Ah, forgot about the UK law. In that case, I say remove from Wiki just so that those laws aren't violated. I'd hate to have someone stumbling upon in by accident...Although, I doubt there'd be much trouble; it's a Wikipedia page, where a person will visit once and then zoom away once they see the image content. English Wiki is for all countries, particularly those in English-speaking countries. The US, UK, Canada, and Australia seem to be the home of most users.

RestlessOne wrote:

Ah, forgot about the UK law. In that case, I say remove from Wiki just so that those laws aren't violated. I'd hate to have someone stumbling upon in by accident...Although, I doubt there'd be much trouble; it's a Wikipedia page, where a person will visit once and then zoom away once they see the image content. English Wiki is for all countries, particularly those in English-speaking countries. The US, UK, Canada, and Australia seem to be the home of most users.

Better remove any images of swastikas or the Tiananmen Square protests, too, since those could be problematic for users in Germany or China. Actually, they should probably take down anything the average Floridian community would find offensive, as well -- just to be safe.

RestlessOne wrote:

Ah, forgot about the UK law. In that case, I say remove from Wiki just so that those laws aren't violated. I'd hate to have someone stumbling upon in by accident...Although, I doubt there'd be much trouble; it's a Wikipedia page, where a person will visit once and then zoom away once they see the image content. English Wiki is for all countries, particularly those in English-speaking countries. The US, UK, Canada, and Australia seem to be the home of most users.

Better remove any images of swastikas or the Tiananmen Square protests, too, since those could be problematic for users in Germany or China. Actually, they should probably take down anything the average Floridian community would find offensive, as well -- just to be safe.

Takeyo wrote:

RestlessOne wrote: Ah, forgot about the UK law. In that case, I say remove from Wiki just so that those laws aren't violated. I'd hate to have someone stumbling upon in by accident...Although, I doubt there'd be much trouble; it's a Wikipedia page, where a person will visit once and then zoom away once they see the image content. English Wiki is for all countries, particularly those in English-speaking countries. The US, UK, Canada, and Australia seem to be the home of most users. Better remove any images of swastikas or the Tiananmen Square protests, too, since those could be problematic for users in Germany or China. Actually, they should probably take down anything the average Floridian community would find offensive, as well -- just to be safe.

Bit of a difference here. English Wikipedia is aimed at the English-speaking world (that's why it goes by English naming conventions!) and has a no censorship policy. However, Wikimedia, where images are hosted, and Wikipedia follow laws in place and I know Wikimedia has at least one lawyer user who will give advice on a situation, such as with copyrights. While the first image on the lolicon article is not sexually explicit, the second one is. I was speaking in regards to that one--I have no idea what other loli images are on Wikimedia/Wikipedia, or whether they are sexually explicit and unnecessary within an article. The lolicon article doesn't benefit from a sexually explicit image when others are available that will not put a UK user at risk.

So, substitute that isn't sexually explicit but still is able to visually depict the subject at hand? Better than one that is explicit; the general controversy and acts can be explained in the article. The first image is honestly all the article needs; the second seems more there for shock value or to show-off than anything else.

So, yeah, might be better to research some stuff on Wiki first That said, I don't actually know what the consensus on using images that go against UK law is. I assume they'll follow it, but who knows. This is all under the assumption they will (except for removing the image, which I find isn't necessary to illustrating the article).

Screw the UK. Our freedom of speech doesn't need to silenced because of their stupid policies. Let them deal with it at their end.

The article on Hentai has a much more disturbing picture than three toddlers in pumpkin panties for the lolicon article.

"No real people pictured"

Updated Update: This story has been updated to show that Larry Sanger now says that the images in question do not depict real people and to include additional legal clarification.

He says, however, that "the images did not contain actual people." And he acknowledges that in publicly explaining his report to the FBI, his use of the term child pornography "may have been misleading."

Sanger tells us he reported the Wikimedia Commons images to FBI reluctantly, but believes he ultimately did the right thing.

"If I don't report this - and it's been up for years, apparently - who will? As the co-founder of the project, I believe I have a special personal obligation to rein in egregious wrongdoing when I see it. Or at least try,"

sigh.. yet another moral panic attack

The original register article has been updated

Quote:

"No real people pictured" Updated Update: This story has been updated to show that Larry Sanger now says that the images in question do not depict real people and to include additional legal clarification. He says, however, that "the images did not contain actual people." And he acknowledges that in publicly explaining his report to the FBI, his use of the term child pornography "may have been misleading."

huh, no shit.

Quote:

Sanger tells us he reported the Wikimedia Commons images to FBI reluctantly, but believes he ultimately did the right thing. "If I don't report this - and it's been up for years, apparently - who will? As the co-founder of the project, I believe I have a special personal obligation to rein in egregious wrongdoing when I see it. Or at least try,"

yeah well all the atrocities and all forms of oppression, large or small in the past and present are also committed by people who think they're doing "the right thing".

I've lost my respect for him and his current sites, WatchKnow.org and Citizendium.org, ".. an online encyclopedia that does not allow anonymous editing and takes greater pains to avoid conflicts of interest" (aka censorship) and will be recommending wikipedia/media instead.