Minors and sexual explicit stuff

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Minors and sexual explicit stuff

private musings
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.

best,

Peter,
PM.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Brian J Mingus
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings <[hidden email]>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.
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>

Wikipedia is not porn.

29 posts left.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

private musings
I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection

cheers,

Peter,
PM.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Brian J Mingus
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings <[hidden email]
> >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.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Peter,
> > PM.
> >
>
> Wikipedia is not porn.
>
> 29 posts left.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

geni
2009/11/16 private musings <[hidden email]>:

> I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
> any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Brian J Mingus
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings <[hidden email]
>> >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.
>> >
>> > best,
>> >
>> > Peter,
>> > PM.
>> >
>>
>> Wikipedia is not porn.
>>
>> 29 posts left.
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

geni
In reply to this post by private musings
2009/11/16 private musings <[hidden email]>:
> I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have
> any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.

Already been addressed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Youth_protection

In practice defacto policy is that we remove personal information
posted by younger users.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

private musings
Thanks for the link to the 'youth protection' page, geni - I've linked to it
from Wikipedia:Child protection rather than redirect or abandon that page
just yet - I hope we might make some progress :-)

With that in mind, it occurred to me that this list would be a good spot to
ask folks if they are aware of any child protection measures in place in any
of the WMF communities. I get the feeling that some feel child protection
measures might either be fundamentally a bad thing, or in some way be a net
negative, perhaps in terms of participation etc. - if this is your view,
pipe up! It would be good to debate a little, and try and find some common
ground and move forward :-)

So here's my question - is anyone out there aware of any community
discussion / policies / practices in regard to regulating children's
participation in a project - be it a wikipedia of any language, or any
project in the wiki-verse. I'd also really like to extend this to ask those
readers of this list who partipate in other collaborative projects, or have
experience of other large web sites, to see what measures are out there, and
how they might work.

Finally, I'd like to repeat my request that the smarter brains than I on the
advisory board might like to offer some thoughts in this area - or maybe any
foundation staff, and / or board members could indicate whether or not it's
been discussed, and whether or not I might have any luck in getting this
issue onto the radar - I think it's very important.

best,

Peter,
PM.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/11/16 private musings <[hidden email]>:
> > I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and
> have
> > any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here;
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Peter,
> > PM.
>
> Already been addressed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Youth_protection
>
> In practice defacto policy is that we remove personal information
> posted by younger users.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Andrew Garrett-4
In reply to this post by private musings

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
[hidden email]
http://werdn.us/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 [hidden email] 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


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Effe iets anders
In reply to this post by Andrew Garrett-4
Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like
to make a remark.

You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the
world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the
sensibilities "irrational" and "lacking in substance" (inconsistent is
fair enough). Clearly, you belong to the group of people who do not
have a problem at all with these images, and PM belongs to the group
of people that has huge problems with them. The mere fact that you two
disagree should not lead to the conclusion we should not think about a
way of taking away the problem for the people in side of the spectrum
where PM is located.

I think you could lay a comparison between people having significant
problems with these images and therefore are not able (or less able)
to access Wikipedia with people who have technical issues because they
do not want to download a piece of propitiatory software. We care a
lot about the latter group, why abolish even the idea of caring about
the first? Because we do not belong to it?

Some people do indeed think that ancient pornography should be hidden
as well by the way, although I do get your point. Sometimes there is
clearly an educational purpuse involved, and the images add value.

Now let it be clear I do not vouch at all for getting rid of the
images, or any free content. However, if that would suit a significant
group of people, we could consider to make them a little less
prominently accessible. Please speak up if the following procedure
would make no sense at all to you:

0) think about whether we want (if it exists) to help reduce this
group of people with siginificant problems in the first place.
1) research / find research on how large the group of people is that
have significant problems with this issue (I define significant here
as "having the impact that because of this, they will visit Wikipedia
less frequently or not at all")
2) consider which approaches would be possible
3) research which of these approached would be help to decrease the
group of people having significant problems with this issue
4) consider whether this has any negative impact for the people not
having these significant problems
5) balance these advantages/disadvantages

lets not jump to 5) immediately.

To get to the original question of PM, I am not sure actually whether
the advisory board would have people on it who would be helpful on
this specific topic. Angela, could you advise on this?

Perhaps this topic could, however, better be approached through the
often named Strategy Process. Philippe, do you have a suggestion how
this can be incorporated?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2009/11/17 Andrew Garrett <[hidden email]>:

>
> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://werdn.us/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Thank you effe for your analysis. I do agree that this can be considered
something that some people feel strongly about and, also as something that
would entice certain groups of people to use Wikipedia more freely. Growing
our community or readers and editors is a priority.

The problem is that while private musing is quite outspoken about the
priority for his concern, we can spend effort on one issue at a time and
while I sympathise, I would not give it priority because I favour effort on
the issue that has my concern. As long as our imagery is  serchable, usable
only for people who speak English I think that this trumps the strategic
value of prudery.

When for either of the two issues a solution is to be found, there will be a
need for substantial investment of resources. There is no obvious and
sensible solution that will be accepted for the cncern of private musing. It
will even be hard to come up with an acceptable default position, more
likely is different default positions that can be chosen by communities. It
is even questionable that such positions can be found; I expect that the
best that can be had is a bad compromise for everyone.

Multi lingual support is easy; either you wish for it or you don't there is
no half way house, the good thing is, the ability for search in other
languages will not detract from the ability to search in English..

We do not have even a glimmer of what can be technically done to address
private musings concerns and we do not know what would be acceptable by our
communities. So let us work on the technical aspects of multi lingual
support and divine a workable compromise for imagery that show people in the
flesh and as biological entities at the same time. Once we have multi
lingual support sorted out and grown our audience even further, we may have
something that we can do that is practical and will have some support.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/11/17 effe iets anders <[hidden email]>

> Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like
> to make a remark.
>
> You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the
> world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the
> sensibilities "irrational" and "lacking in substance" (inconsistent is
> fair enough). Clearly, you belong to the group of people who do not
> have a problem at all with these images, and PM belongs to the group
> of people that has huge problems with them. The mere fact that you two
> disagree should not lead to the conclusion we should not think about a
> way of taking away the problem for the people in side of the spectrum
> where PM is located.
>
> I think you could lay a comparison between people having significant
> problems with these images and therefore are not able (or less able)
> to access Wikipedia with people who have technical issues because they
> do not want to download a piece of propitiatory software. We care a
> lot about the latter group, why abolish even the idea of caring about
> the first? Because we do not belong to it?
>
> Some people do indeed think that ancient pornography should be hidden
> as well by the way, although I do get your point. Sometimes there is
> clearly an educational purpuse involved, and the images add value.
>
> Now let it be clear I do not vouch at all for getting rid of the
> images, or any free content. However, if that would suit a significant
> group of people, we could consider to make them a little less
> prominently accessible. Please speak up if the following procedure
> would make no sense at all to you:
>
> 0) think about whether we want (if it exists) to help reduce this
> group of people with siginificant problems in the first place.
> 1) research / find research on how large the group of people is that
> have significant problems with this issue (I define significant here
> as "having the impact that because of this, they will visit Wikipedia
> less frequently or not at all")
> 2) consider which approaches would be possible
> 3) research which of these approached would be help to decrease the
> group of people having significant problems with this issue
> 4) consider whether this has any negative impact for the people not
> having these significant problems
> 5) balance these advantages/disadvantages
>
> lets not jump to 5) immediately.
>
> To get to the original question of PM, I am not sure actually whether
> the advisory board would have people on it who would be helpful on
> this specific topic. Angela, could you advise on this?
>
> Perhaps this topic could, however, better be approached through the
> often named Strategy Process. Philippe, do you have a suggestion how
> this can be incorporated?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2009/11/17 Andrew Garrett <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://werdn.us/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

David Moran-3
The New York City public library system--and I would imagine most municipal
library systems in general--is filled with underage interns (or pages, or
whatever they're called now) who play a not insignificant role in curating
collections that contain material every bit as explicit as those examples
given here, including computers, which offer unrestricted access to the
breadth of the internet, which contains material very, very much more
explicit than the examples given here.  And libraries are not age-segregated
or censored in the manner you describe here.  Wikipedia is an educational
endeavor, not the MPAA, and the constant re-flourishing of this topic under
varying guises, particularly when the consensus of community standards on
things like pearl necklace, Virgin Killer &c &c have been demonstrated time
and again, by the same old hands quite frankly makes this list a chore to
read.

FMF




On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you effe for your analysis. I do agree that this can be considered
> something that some people feel strongly about and, also as something that
> would entice certain groups of people to use Wikipedia more freely. Growing
> our community or readers and editors is a priority.
>
> The problem is that while private musing is quite outspoken about the
> priority for his concern, we can spend effort on one issue at a time and
> while I sympathise, I would not give it priority because I favour effort on
> the issue that has my concern. As long as our imagery is  serchable, usable
> only for people who speak English I think that this trumps the strategic
> value of prudery.
>
> When for either of the two issues a solution is to be found, there will be
> a
> need for substantial investment of resources. There is no obvious and
> sensible solution that will be accepted for the cncern of private musing.
> It
> will even be hard to come up with an acceptable default position, more
> likely is different default positions that can be chosen by communities. It
> is even questionable that such positions can be found; I expect that the
> best that can be had is a bad compromise for everyone.
>
> Multi lingual support is easy; either you wish for it or you don't there is
> no half way house, the good thing is, the ability for search in other
> languages will not detract from the ability to search in English..
>
> We do not have even a glimmer of what can be technically done to address
> private musings concerns and we do not know what would be acceptable by our
> communities. So let us work on the technical aspects of multi lingual
> support and divine a workable compromise for imagery that show people in
> the
> flesh and as biological entities at the same time. Once we have multi
> lingual support sorted out and grown our audience even further, we may have
> something that we can do that is practical and will have some support.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/11/17 effe iets anders <[hidden email]>
>
> > Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like
> > to make a remark.
> >
> > You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the
> > world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the
> > sensibilities "irrational" and "lacking in substance" (inconsistent is
> > fair enough). Clearly, you belong to the group of people who do not
> > have a problem at all with these images, and PM belongs to the group
> > of people that has huge problems with them. The mere fact that you two
> > disagree should not lead to the conclusion we should not think about a
> > way of taking away the problem for the people in side of the spectrum
> > where PM is located.
> >
> > I think you could lay a comparison between people having significant
> > problems with these images and therefore are not able (or less able)
> > to access Wikipedia with people who have technical issues because they
> > do not want to download a piece of propitiatory software. We care a
> > lot about the latter group, why abolish even the idea of caring about
> > the first? Because we do not belong to it?
> >
> > Some people do indeed think that ancient pornography should be hidden
> > as well by the way, although I do get your point. Sometimes there is
> > clearly an educational purpuse involved, and the images add value.
> >
> > Now let it be clear I do not vouch at all for getting rid of the
> > images, or any free content. However, if that would suit a significant
> > group of people, we could consider to make them a little less
> > prominently accessible. Please speak up if the following procedure
> > would make no sense at all to you:
> >
> > 0) think about whether we want (if it exists) to help reduce this
> > group of people with siginificant problems in the first place.
> > 1) research / find research on how large the group of people is that
> > have significant problems with this issue (I define significant here
> > as "having the impact that because of this, they will visit Wikipedia
> > less frequently or not at all")
> > 2) consider which approaches would be possible
> > 3) research which of these approached would be help to decrease the
> > group of people having significant problems with this issue
> > 4) consider whether this has any negative impact for the people not
> > having these significant problems
> > 5) balance these advantages/disadvantages
> >
> > lets not jump to 5) immediately.
> >
> > To get to the original question of PM, I am not sure actually whether
> > the advisory board would have people on it who would be helpful on
> > this specific topic. Angela, could you advise on this?
> >
> > Perhaps this topic could, however, better be approached through the
> > often named Strategy Process. Philippe, do you have a suggestion how
> > this can be incorporated?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2009/11/17 Andrew Garrett <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://werdn.us/
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

thekohser
In reply to this post by private musings
Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children
who "have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within
whatever
limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate":

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-scandal-online-facebook?currentPage=all

So, if that's too long for you to read and consider the implications,
there's always
this Wikimedia image that has received nearly 2,000 page views this month:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_Ball_Torture.jpg

Or, there's this one that has captured the attention of over 2,000 visitors
this month:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estim_penis.jpg

I have trouble understanding how these images help "that girl in Africa"
emerge
from the abject poverty that surrounds her, but I'll trust you guys (we're
all adults here,
right?) that you're helping to fulfill that mission with publication of
images like these,
with little to no concern whether there are minors consuming them.

Gregory Kohs
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

David Moran-3
INTERNET SEX PANIC.  That GQ article doesn't even have anything to do with
Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what your point here is, other than that
teenagers are both interested in and curious about sex, and will use the
tools at their disposal to explore this curiosity, whether they be social
media or reference material.

And the suggestion that removing certain content would make the project more
likely to be used by certain demographics of people is not a persuasive
one.  It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more
comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar
libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from
the building.  But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that
offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is
different.  These are people who fundamentally do not understand what
libraries (or Wikipedia) are for.

And here's a link for you too, since you were considerate enough to include
one.

http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1011029.html

FMF



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children
> who "have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within
> whatever
> limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate":
>
>
> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-scandal-online-facebook?currentPage=all
>
> So, if that's too long for you to read and consider the implications,
> there's always
> this Wikimedia image that has received nearly 2,000 page views this month:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_Ball_Torture.jpg
>
> Or, there's this one that has captured the attention of over 2,000 visitors
> this month:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estim_penis.jpg
>
> I have trouble understanding how these images help "that girl in Africa"
> emerge
> from the abject poverty that surrounds her, but I'll trust you guys (we're
> all adults here,
> right?) that you're helping to fulfill that mission with publication of
> images like these,
> with little to no concern whether there are minors consuming them.
>
> Gregory Kohs
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Anthony-73
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more
> comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar
> libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from
> the building.  But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that
> offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is
> different.

I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my
library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia.  Yes,
there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material
is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even
remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how
graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to
minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and
in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

The Cunctator
Clearly, Wikipedia causes teenage pregnancy. Why is anyone disputing that
point?

SAFE SEX = NO WIKIPEDIA

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more
> > comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar
> > libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed
> from
> > the building.  But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask
> that
> > offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is
> > different.
>
> I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my
> library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia.  Yes,
> there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material
> is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even
> remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how
> graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to
> minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and
> in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by Andrew Garrett-4
"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 <[hidden email]>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
> [hidden email]
> http://werdn.us/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

geni
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
2009/11/17 Anthony <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more
>> comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar
>> libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from
>> the building.  But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that
>> offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is
>> different.
>
> I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my
> library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia.  Yes,
> there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material
> is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even
> remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how
> graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to
> minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and
> in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.

You never flicked through the photography or modern art section. Sure
my library didn't have any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work but it had
some fairly explicit stuff. That said I think the winner in that sense
was one of the art books my school held.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Anthony-73
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You never flicked through the photography or modern art section.

I highly doubt we have a "modern art section".

In any case, as Jimbo always likes to point out, Wikipedia is only the
encyclopedia.  The rest of the library is Wikia.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

Bugzilla from hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
If anybody wants censored encyclopedia there is a very easy way how to obtain it:

1) Take a copy of Wikipedia's database.
2) Use it at your own Mediawiki server.
3) Censor whatever you want.
4) Never ever bother others with your hobbies.

This solution of your problem is completely legal and free of charge. Enjoy.

Jiri

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minors and sexual explicit stuff

thekohser
In reply to this post by thekohser
One point that the apologists seem to be missing is that the Wikimedia
Foundation assumes and expects that sometimes minors have administrator
rights on the Wikimedia projects.  This then gives them the responsibility
of deciding what is suitable content or not for the project.  Likewise, the
Foundation seems to assume and expect that there will be some risk of the
child interacting on very serious issues with grown adults whose agenda may
indeed be to exploit the minor.  But, the response is...

Go fork yourself a new wiki, if you don't like it.

And the Foundation powers that be wonder why critics sometimes skip to more
"dramatic" forms of protest, without "going through the proper channels".
Jimmy Wales can probably tell you about this very phenomenon when I didn't
"go through proper channels" to advocate against his company hosting a
"Spanking Art" Wikia site, complete with photos and drawings of young girls
in pigtails being showcased in a highly exploitative and abusive setting.
Wikia wanted more time to try to "work things out" with the creators of that
environment, while I preferred that it be taken down in 48 hours, regardless
of conversations with the creators.

Oh well, I guess I'll just go make myself my own wiki.  I'm working on an
article about "Consumer economy", if anyone is interested in helping out and
earning $15:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Talk:Consumer_economy

Greg
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12