Wikipedia blocked by UK ISPs, For "potentially illegal indecent image" Options Rating

[Kato]

I'm still reading all the talk pages and blogs on this and it is difficult to assess which Wikipedian statement is the more outrageous.

This Wikipedia blogger is up in arms about the "censorship" and the IWF.

The idea that an adult with full mental agency would decide that it is acceptable, even desirable, for another group to decide what she can and can’t see is repulsive.

Then why is this person a supporter of Wikipedia? Which is a vast mechanism full of groups of mysterious figures who spend all day bickering and deciding what can and can’t be seen. The IWF liaise with accountable bodies that take their lead from democratically elected officials. Whereas Wikipedia editors answer to no one when they censor content.

A guy on Wikipedia writes (bolding mine):

as long as album covers like the one at issue are classified as child porn by someone's definition, then I will vehemently claim that I ahve a human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF, and as long as I don't market it as child pornography. It is only when the definition is tightened up to something reasonable that I will drop that claim. I think many Wikipedia editors agree with me. davidwr

Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and removed an unrelated comment elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the NY meetup who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.

The whole thing is an unsavory cocktail at the best of times what with "lolita" categories appearing on the Wiki-Commons, categories and pictures of juvenile rape victims being removed after another one of our complaints, and known pedophiles defending their positions on various articles - and then throw in the fact that the WMF have pushed their product with SOS Children UK to give the impression that the Wikipedia brand is a child friendly educational charity, and it is just a mess. On the SOS / WMF UK press release you can find David Gerard's name at the foot of the page as a press contact. The last press work he did was to defend the publication of a picture of a naked 11 year old girl with her legs apart under the title "Virgin Killer". Them's the facts.

[KamrynMatika]

The whole thing is an unsavory cocktail at the best of times what with "lolita" categories appearing on the Wiki-Commons, categories and pictures of juvenile rape victims being removed after another one of our complaints, and known pedophiles defending their positions on various articles - and then throw in the fact that the WMF have pushed their product with SOS Children UK to give the impression that the Wikipedia brand is a child friendly educational charity, and it is just a mess. On the SOS / WMF UK press release you can find David Gerard's name at the foot of the page as a press contact. The last press work he did was to defend the publication of a picture of a naked 11 year old girl with her legs apart under the title "Virgin Killer". Them's the facts.

Maybe this will help uncover a lot of the other unsavory stuff on WP and Commons. I hope the press pick up on the other stuff, they would have a field day if they found out that WMF projects have a long history of hosting questionable images of minors.

I'm still finding it hard to believe that they are so determined to keep a non-free image of a nude minor. I keep finding myself thinking that maybe they've got a point, but then I remember what the image in question is and I go through the "WTF are they thinking?!" phase all over again. How can they have no idea how bad it looks? I've already had a bunch of my friends (non wikipedia editors - just internet users) email/IM me with "Have you seen this??? [article link]. WTF, I never realised wikipedia was like that". People in the UK take child porn a lot more seriously than 'internet censorship'.

I can't get over how nonsensical it is. As if publishing a photo of a naked 11 year old girl is OK just because it's an album cover? OH, and because other people do it too. So mind boggling. Jimbo Wales, David Gerard, and most Wikipedia editors think it's a travesty that people in the UK can't look at a picture of a naked eleven year old on Wikipedia any more, and value keeping the image over letting people in the UK edit the 'encyclopedia'. Surreal.

[The Wales Hunter]

I'm still reading all the talk pages and blogs on this and it is difficult to assess which Wikipedian statement is the more outrageous.

This Wikipedia blogger is up in arms about the "censorship" and the IWF.

The idea that an adult with full mental agency would decide that it is acceptable, even desirable, for another group to decide what she can and can’t see is repulsive.

Kato, we seem to be in broad agreement over this one and realise the damage a claim of child pornography can do to a UK resident. I would suggest most UK residents would rather have a bit of censorship in order to reduce the chances of them being caught viewing potential child pornography than risk becoming a social outcast, right?

And it's not as though we're not used to it - the BBC is a branch of the Government!

[Eppur si muove]

The last press work he did was to defend the publication of a picture of a naked 11 year old girl with her legs apart under the title "Virgin Killer". Them's the facts.

I think the person whose opinion is most important on this is the subject of the photograph. If she was an 11 year old when the picture was taken, she is now 43 or so and able to form a judgment on whether she was abused at the time it was created or whether she finds the continuing available of the image of her naked child self degrading. Has anyone asked her whether she wants the photo suppressed or not?

And if we are going to say that what matters is the age of the model at the time the original picture was created, then Amor Vincit Omnia (Caravaggio) shows an image for which a live child model posed with legs apart to expose the genitals. Why does it matter that one was taken with a camera and the other was painted? There was still a child posing nude in either case.

My objection to child pornography being available is that the production of much of it involves a child being abused. And whilst in some cases it is obvious that abuse has happened in the production, in others it isn't. In those cases it is best to err on the side of caution and treat the pictures as if the child was abused. An even if you know that in a certain case a child was not abused, the commercial availability of that cse might encourage the production of a similar picture that does involve the abuse of a child. And, of course, the issue doesn't apply just to pictures of children but to others not available to give free consent such as adults with profound learning disabilities.

What I don't understand is the fuss being made here of there being pictures of boy scouts at meetings etc. They were not being abused for the production of the picture. (Unless you count what goes on at typical scout meetings as abusive.) So what's the problem. Yes there is a problem when a spanking Wikia wants to import the pictures. But I find this reuse of an image hardly different from slash fiction based on, say, the characters from a children's television series.

[KamrynMatika]

Kato, we seem to be in broad agreement over this one and realise the damage a claim of child pornography can do to a UK resident. I would suggest most UK residents would rather have a bit of censorship in order to reduce the chances of them being caught viewing potential child pornography than risk becoming a social outcast, right?

Yeah. In the UK, if there's the merest suggestion that you've been involved in something dodgy involving children you might as well move house and change your name, because even if you never end up in court it will spread amongst everyone you know or are ever likely to meet. Even if you're found innocent people will still look at you funny. I'm quite happy to sacrifice my right to view questionable content to save myself the embarassment of someone walking past my PC just as I open a seemingly innocuous Wikipedia page (who would expect that an album article contains child pornography )

As an aside, it looks like the blacklist has propogated to BT now. I could see it before, but I checked just now and it's gone.

[dogbiscuit]

What I don't understand is the fuss being made here of there being pictures of boy scouts at meetings etc. They were not being abused for the production of the picture. (Unless you count what goes on at typical scout meetings as abusive.) So what's the problem. Yes there is a problem when a spanking Wikia wants to import the pictures. But I find this reuse of an image hardly different from slash fiction based on, say, the characters from a children's television series.

The issue is not so much that someone places pictures of children on the internet. There there were a few issues that got conflated:

- people putting pictures up for innocent reasons not understanding the implications of the licence release they had granted. (Response of the Wikipedian - well that is there fault for not being a lawyer and understanding the implications).

- Wikia - a Jimbo Wales production - completely failing to recognise that what they were publishing was actually illegal content where the managers of the Wikia site only begrudgingly removed identifiable pictures of children which were associated with text suggesting that they would enjoy being abused. Even when the Wiki was taken down, Wikia apologised to the users of the site, not to those who had potentially been abused and embarrassed by their pictures being used for pornographic purposes. The Wikia site was intermingled with sites targeted at children (though their rules claimed to require all sites be targeted at the over 13s due to COPPA evasion).

- no concept of editorial restraint or responsibility. While being free thinking is one thing, Wikipedia fails to acknowledge that they are so widely read, and that they have no restrictions or differentiation on their content, so the most tasteless and inappropriate content is indistinguishable from the good.

[SirFozzie]

It's interesting. The IWF is reviewing the ban. if they decide to keep the image at that level, then they've already mentioned that they're going to have to go after a lot of places because people (either out of concern that the image is elsewhere as well, or as a "taunt" that IWF's not doing anything real) have been showing the IWF all the other places where that image is.

It's really a no-win situation for the IWF. Reverse the ban, and look like you backed down from Wikipedia. Or upgrade the ban to all the other places, and continue to take shit from all and sundry.

[The Wales Hunter]

Wikipedia for Dummies wades into the mess:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

[Cedric]

It's interesting. The IWF is reviewing the ban. if they decide to keep the image at that level, then they've already mentioned that they're going to have to go after a lot of places because people (either out of concern that the image is elsewhere as well, or as a "taunt" that IWF's not doing anything real) have been showing the IWF all the other places where that image is.

It's really a no-win situation for the IWF. Reverse the ban, and look like you backed down from Wikipedia. Or upgrade the ban to all the other places, and continue to take shit from all and sundry.

Hmmm. It seems as though Jimbo is having second thoughts as well. Interesting indeed.

[maggot3]

Jimbo Wales is now saying he doesn't like the image much.

Indeed. But I would recommend to the community that we go back and take a hard look at whether we ought to be keeping this based on our own principles, if it is in fact likely to be in violation of the law in the UK and (especially) US. As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography. So then the question becomes: does this image fit the definition under (especially) US law, or the law of any particularly relevant countries (UK). That is a question of judgment of fact that I do not think has been looked at sufficiently. I am not an expert, but I can tell you that - as for me - I am not downloading or looking at the image at all, I don't want it anywhere near my computer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

oops, beaten. there should be some sort of delete post function somewhere, for very recent posts.

This post has been edited by maggot3: Tue 9th December 2008, 5:36pm

[The Wales Hunter]

That comment from Jimbo is fascinating. He's admitting he doesn't want to view or download the image as he doesn't want it anywhere near his computer? Anyone think he may have been given a legal nudge?

[Kato]

That comment from Jimbo is fascinating. He's admitting he doesn't want to view or download the image as he doesn't want it anywhere near his computer? Anyone think he may have been given a legal nudge?

It is a smart move by Jimbo. Perhaps the smartest thing he has ever done. All publicity over this is ultimately bad publicity for the WMF despite the early chorus of OMG censorship that went round the place. The resounding aftermath will be an association in the public's mind between Wikipedia and unsafe images of children, and an end to any pretensions of the site working with educational/childrens groups.

[GlassBeadGame]

That comment from Jimbo is fascinating. He's admitting he doesn't want to view or download the image as he doesn't want it anywhere near his computer? Anyone think he may have been given a legal nudge?

Sometimes publicly threatening to sue people without cause will result in a discrete call from your own lawyer.

[Eva Destruction]

That comment from Jimbo is fascinating. He's admitting he doesn't want to view or download the image as he doesn't want it anywhere near his computer? Anyone think he may have been given a legal nudge?

That's just plain weird on Jimbo's part. No judge is going to blame the operator of a service for looking at an image to decide whether his service should host it, any more than Somey and Selina would be responsible were I to embed a porn image in this message and they viewed it for the purpose of deleting it. If anything, surely he has a duty of care to know what's being hosted on a service he's responsible for?

[The Wales Hunter]

If anything, surely he has a duty of care to know what's being hosted on a service he's responsible for?

Then hopefully he'll reply to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256866424

Explicit pictures potentially of minors

Jimbo, above you quite rightly state "As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography". However, are you aware of the number of potentially sexual images held on WMF servers where the subjects may, or may not, be above the age of consent?

How many of the following images can you/we actually prove are from people of legal age? And these are just some examples of many:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...c_hair_(female) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...oductive_system http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation

Surely we have to stop accepting images unless full proof can be obtained that the subject of the picture 1) gives consent and 2) is of a legal age to give consent, at the very least? As things stand, we are facing a real risk. Thanks GTD 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But...

[Kato]

If anything, surely he has a duty of care to know what's being hosted on a service he's responsible for?

Wales doesn't take responsibility for anything. Surely you've learned that by now? That's the whole point of WP. No responsibility.

[GlassBeadGame]

That comment from Jimbo is fascinating. He's admitting he doesn't want to view or download the image as he doesn't want it anywhere near his computer? Anyone think he may have been given a legal nudge?

That's just plain weird on Jimbo's part. No judge is going to blame the operator of a service for looking at an image to decide whether his service should host it, any more than Somey and Selina would be responsible were I to embed a porn image in this message and they viewed it for the purpose of deleting it. If anything, surely he has a duty of care to know what's being hosted on a service he's responsible for?

I think Jimbo conflated Wikipedia's relative success so far on the public relations front with the merits of WP's legal position against IWF. This caused him to overplay his hand. Wikipedia needs a quick resolution to this, or in alternative needs to unblock those proxies from editing, or this is going cause internal problems. Also the public relations tide will quickly turn if the press digs into other objectionable content. IWF might want to stem the public relations hit from only focusing on an isolated album cover. They could either seek a settlement or escalate the attack against other content. The album cover was an easy target as it is known to be a depiction of a child in an obviously sexual situation. It fits the criteria very nicely but it is stale and "old news." It will be more work to identify further violating content but it certainly could be done.

[Milton Roe]

My personal feelings are those of the "Internet libertarians" criticized earlier in this thread; I think the concern about the image is ludicrous, but I also feel that Wikipedia should not take positions on secondary matters that interfere with its primary purpose. It's just not a battle worth fighting.

No doubt they feel it is, if they can get away with making the world think they're not the ones fighting it. It's a conflict with their editors, and they're just watching.

Look at the Jimbo's comment today; he's now singing harmony with David Gerard. "Shucks, this is a community decision. I don't know much about it. I'm no expert myself, you see, but speaking purely personally, I wouldn't have it anywhere near my computer. Subtext: Of course, these things are all up to individuals on WP. You know, we never tell each other what to do, here. Everybody decides for themselves what's best. So I'm just a commentator, you know? It's not like I can throw my weight around...."

This is all the finest, 99 and 44/100% pure bullshit. Jimbo actually thinks he's getting away with it. He isn't, of course. The unwashed public and the press assume that WP ultimately (at least over a few days' time) doesn't contain anything that the people who make policy there, want deleted. The Foundation and the people who run it do own the hardware and software, and thus they have the last say. To imagine otherwise is shear madness, and very few people are that stupid, even if they haven't enough experience with WP to have personally seen Jimbo and cronies delete editors, images, even the history of discussions. Jimbo and Gerard can stand there saying it's not up to them all day long, and it will do them no good at all.

It does remind of the Emperor's New Clothes, though. Nobody is telling Wales or Gerard on WP how silly they look. And as for the commentary of the world and the rest of the internet, they're still attempting the big lie, and counting on it to work.

Well, it's not working. And I'm rather enjoying the sight of Wales and Gerard with their eyes squinched shut, pretending they can't be seen.

[dogbiscuit]

Of course, it might also be that having made his big exclusive play on Channel 4 news, they've been getting back to him with supplementary questions fed from the likes of myself.

Can I suggest that any concerned reader stokes the fires of your various favourite journals with pertinent examples showing how Wikipedia fails to take an ethical and moral stance with its lack of editorial restraint and control. Mud will only stick if it is flung - but this is very sticky mud so it is worth flinging.

[The Wales Hunter]

Wikipedia removed from blacklist:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm