Mailing List Archive

Controversial Content Study part 3
Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is now up on its own Meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
Hi Robert / all,

I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able
to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but
related to the Controversial Content study;

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important

In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously
which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in
the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously
removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such
material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be
talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) -
and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such
material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.

Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and
I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the
decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at
commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available
to 'oversighters' here;

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important

I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any
board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)

best,

Peter,
PM.

ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16
year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent
could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a
basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.


On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is
> now up on its own Meta page
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three.
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has
> been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All
> three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either
> the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to
> all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated
> very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
I would think it best to remove permanently;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

cheers,

Peter,
PM.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert / all,
>
> I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able
> to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but
> related to the Controversial Content study;
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
>
> In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously
> which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in
> the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously
> removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such
> material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be
> talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) -
> and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such
> material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.
>
> Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and
> I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the
> decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at
> commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available
> to 'oversighters' here;
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
>
> I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any
> board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16
> year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent
> could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a
> basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is
>> now up on its own Meta page
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three.
>> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has
>> been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All
>> three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the
>> Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either
>> the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to
>> all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated
>> very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
Discussions of single images is not productive. There are probably other
pictures that are best removed. They are the exception not the rule.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 11 October 2010 11:02, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Robert / all,
> >
> > I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able
> > to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but
> > related to the Controversial Content study;
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
> >
> > In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously
> > which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in
> > the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously
> > removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such
> > material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be
> > talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) -
> > and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such
> > material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.
> >
> > Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and
> > I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the
> > decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at
> > commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available
> > to 'oversighters' here;
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_important
> >
> > I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any
> > board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Peter,
> > PM.
> >
> > ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16
> > year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent
> > could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a
> > basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris <rmharris@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> >> Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content
> is
> >> now up on its own Meta page
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three
> .
> >> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it
> has
> >> been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All
> >> three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting.
> Either
> >> the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again
> to
> >> all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated
> >> very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Commons-l mailing list
> >> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>

You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
An'n 11.10.2010 13:15, hett wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk schreven:
> thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
>> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
>> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>>
> You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
The file doesn't exist anymore, so that's hardly a problem. I don't know
the original image but if it was an image of a 16 year old that's not
"child pornography". It's illegal and I agree that it's illegal for a
good reason, but it's not sexual child abuse. And every legislation that
deems a single image of a naked underage girl in your cache illegal or
would lead to a lifetime employment barring is plain moronic. The
internet is full of this stuff. Nota bene: not full of "child abuse",
but full of material of biologically mature, but underage individuals
("amateur" porn).

As the amount of consumed non-professionally produced porn grows, the
probability to encounter underage porn approaches 1.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM, <wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
>> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
>> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>>
>
> You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
>
>

I think you're overstating the risk here, if you're referring to
developers clicking on the link in order to delete the file (which
private musings noted is only available to oversighters, contrary to
Marcus Buck's comment that the file no longer exists).

Accessing a file in order to delete it from public view is in the
public interest. I suppose laws can be different everywhere, but
prohibiting the deletion of such images on grounds that you have to
possess it in order to delete it... Not exactly productive, if the
intent is to limit access as much as possible.

As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the
problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a
purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy
development an important concern.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the
> problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a
> purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy
> development an important concern.


Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:

Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value,
should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance.
(Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics
like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the
level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be
a somewhat curated repository, after all.

The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a
BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to
living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with
something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable
examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of
the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.

(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
On 11/10/2010 15:56, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM,<wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
>>> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
>>> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>>>
>>
>> You are aware that, if it is an image is of an underage person, then in some jurisdictions clicking on that link and having the image downloaded in your browser cache is illegal? Also that having it found in someone's browser cache could cause them to be barred from various types of employment for life. And additionally the same would be true if the image was embedded on a wikipage which someone clicked on.
>>
>>
>
> I think you're overstating the risk here, if you're referring to
> developers clicking on the link in order to delete the file (which
> private musings noted is only available to oversighters, contrary to
> Marcus Buck's comment that the file no longer exists).
>
> Accessing a file in order to delete it from public view is in the
> public interest. I suppose laws can be different everywhere, but
> prohibiting the deletion of such images on grounds that you have to
> possess it in order to delete it... Not exactly productive, if the
> intent is to limit access as much as possible.
>

One wouldn't want to be doing it from one's home computer.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content

One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like --

* any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons
* there are no identifiable people in the image
* etc.

It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community.

Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content

Andreas





> Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
>
> Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming
> educational value,
> should be subject to really quite stringent checking of
> provenance.
> (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do
> have pics
> like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up
> to the
> level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are
> supposed to be
> a somewhat curated repository, after all.
>
> The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given
> it's a
> BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe
> reputational harm to
> living persons - I am quite confident the community can
> come up with
> something workable that does the right thing but provides
> suitable
> examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the
> academics of
> the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and
> categorised.
>
> (cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is
> not that versatile)





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Controversial Content Study Part 3 [ In reply to ]
There's probably an important and interesting 'meta' point to make
about whether or not lists such as this one actually have utility in
forwarding discussion and resolution,or whether we prefer to sort of
talk to ourselves, then let things slide... but I'm going for the
later...

I really just wanted to follow up the issue of a systemic approach to
permanent deletion of material which may be illegal on WMF servers -
stewards and oversighters on commons can still access an image of a 16
year old girl masturbating - 9 months after I first notified this
list....

my initial post -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056658.html

image of 16 year old girl masturbating -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Now I would ask Mike if that's legal or not, but I can't seem to get
hold of him - I've previously notified board members on meta with no
response, and hope it's now appropriate to copy Sue on this to ensure
all are at least aware of the lack of action here....

cheers,

Peter,
PM.



On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual content talk page:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
>
> One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would give uploaders options like --
>
> * any identifiable people have given their consent both for the image and its upload to Commons
> * there are no identifiable people in the image
> * etc.
>
> It looks like the Commons Sexual content policy draft, which has been in the works for nearly half a year, will shortly be presented to the community.
>
> Its proposed consent regulations are part of this section:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>> Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
>>
>> Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming
>> educational value,
>> should be subject to really quite stringent checking of
>> provenance.
>> (Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do
>> have pics
>> like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up
>> to the
>> level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are
>> supposed to be
>> a somewhat curated repository, after all.
>>
>> The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given
>> it's a
>> BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe
>> reputational harm to
>> living persons - I am quite confident the community can
>> come up with
>> something workable that does the right thing but provides
>> suitable
>> examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the
>> academics of
>> the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and
>> categorised.
>>
>> (cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is
>> not that versatile)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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