QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 7th June 2010, 10:48am)
It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.
Moral ... ethical ... and a simple one of marketing.
Who, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at?
Stillwaterising, I don't know. We have never crossed swords. On a very brief overview, you appear to be one of the "players" in this Wiki-porn drama.
What is your position and your take on it all?
To whom, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at and should the Wikipedia being marketed at?
As it is also being marketed at children and educational facilities, how do you think it should handle the Porn issue?
As a side note to others ... this has never really being raised before to my knowledge ... does anyone not suspect that the whole issue of Suicide Girls being fed into Flickr and then scrapped into Wikipedia not constitute as obvious advertising by the company being it?
SG is a company previous recently accused of exploitation, its male owner Sean Suhl accused of treating women poorly and failing to pay them, from which many models continue to leave.
Just to look closer at how Web 2.0 works "empowering" ordinary people into doing stuff for free ... the lead SG girl's blog which brought about the walks out and first voiced criticism, is here.