The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

7 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Larry Sanger discovers "illegal pedophilia", on Wikimedia Commons
Rating  5
thekohser
post Wed 7th April 2010, 8:28pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Tweet it from the mountaintops, Larry!

Wish he would have documented a bit more clearly what he's talking about, though.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 7th April 2010, 8:47pm
Post #2


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th April 2010, 3:28pm) *
Wish he would have documented a bit more clearly what he's talking about, though.

At least he made it clear that this is illegal pedophilia, as opposed to the "legal" kind. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Wed 7th April 2010, 8:48pm
Post #3


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



For future reference, the "tweet" in full:
QUOTE
I just discovered to my surprise - actually, horror - that Wikimedia Commons hosts illegal pedophilia. For shame.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Wed 7th April 2010, 8:50pm
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 7th April 2010, 9:47pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th April 2010, 3:28pm) *
Wish he would have documented a bit more clearly what he's talking about, though.

At least he made it clear that this is illegal pedophilia, as opposed to the "legal" kind. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

"The legal kind", as he means it, I assume would be culturally significant paintings of naked kids, and the like.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 7th April 2010, 8:56pm
Post #5


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



Actually he leaves it ambiguous whether he is referring to content or conduct.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Wed 7th April 2010, 9:06pm
Post #6


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th April 2010, 8:28pm) *

Tweet it from the mountaintops, Larry!

Wish he would have documented a bit more clearly what he's talking about, though.

Could be talking about a mental illness which he's conflated with its manifestation as a sex crime which he's in turn conflated with photographic depictions thereof.

So perhaps he means to announce that he has [there, in his hand] a list of photos uploaded to commons which he suspects are child porn. Has he notified anyone about that or is he saying it for its own sake?

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 7th April 2010, 8:56pm) *

Actually he leaves it ambiguous whether he is referring to content or conduct.

Moreover, whether he is interested in deleting the content (and/or banning the users) in question, or merely in shaping the attitude of his blog-readers.

Assuming he's correct about what he discovered, one would hope he has taken further action elsewhere, rather than hoping somebody else will randomly stumble upon the same stuff in a similar fashion (as that could take a very long time).

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Wed 7th April 2010, 9:29pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 7th April 2010, 9:47pm
Post #7


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I guess Larry never read WR that much. He would have known about it a long time ago.

Quick, someone post Haiduc's contribs to his twitter page and see if Larry has a hearth attack.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Wed 7th April 2010, 9:47pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MZMcBride
post Wed 7th April 2010, 9:53pm
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed 25th Mar 2009, 5:02am
Member No.: 10,962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Mr. Sanger clarified to Avicennasis:

I just discovered to my surprise - actually, horror - that Wikimedia Commons hosts illegal pedophilia. For shame.

@lsanger: Email me the link and I will have it removed if your right. Avicennasis@gmail.com

@Avicennasis Check out the "Pedophilia" category.

@lsanger Looks clean to me, including subcat. Must of been deleted already.

@Avicennasis No; it's still there.

Let's see if the FBI thinks the contents of Wikimedia Commons' "Pedophilia" category is "artistic." I don't think so.

@lsanger Law only covers real photos, not drawings/paintings. It's all legal in the United States See the DOJ report: http://bit.ly/dhMzMo

@lsanger If you want to report to FBI for a second opinion, feel free: http://bit.ly/5rx3gz or call 1-800-843-5678 :http://bit.ly/TByp7
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
John Limey
post Wed 7th April 2010, 11:00pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed 8th Jul 2009, 3:04pm
Member No.: 12,473



QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 7th April 2010, 10:53pm) *

Mr. Sanger clarified to Avicennasis:

I just discovered to my surprise - actually, horror - that Wikimedia Commons hosts illegal pedophilia. For shame.

@lsanger: Email me the link and I will have it removed if your right. Avicennasis@gmail.com

@Avicennasis Check out the "Pedophilia" category.

@lsanger Looks clean to me, including subcat. Must of been deleted already.

@Avicennasis No; it's still there.

Let's see if the FBI thinks the contents of Wikimedia Commons' "Pedophilia" category is "artistic." I don't think so.

@lsanger Law only covers real photos, not drawings/paintings. It's all legal in the United States See the DOJ report: http://bit.ly/dhMzMo

@lsanger If you want to report to FBI for a second opinion, feel free: http://bit.ly/5rx3gz or call 1-800-843-5678 :http://bit.ly/TByp7


In my opinion, the WMF is in clear violation of a variety of federal statutes related to obscenity and child protection, but I am neither a judge nor a lawyer. Given Wikipedia's prominence, I think there's roughly a 100% chance that the Department of Justice is well aware of the sorts of material hosted by the WMF and has no interest in pursuing the matter - it would probably end up as a politically nightmareish event if they did.

I think, though, that if the DOJ did start pushing on obscenity matters, the WMF would not comply with them. WP:NOTCENSORED is nearly gospel, and Wales has made his personal position on those issues quite clear. Thus, I really do think things would escalate to the point of a court battle, and if the WMF lost the judge would issue an injunction taking down Wikipedia. At this point, of course, the WMF would remove the offending content and come back up, but it would suffer some damage in the process, and in the long-run it would be forced to make a more serious effort at policing things. Of course, there's a better than even chance that the WMF would win the court proceedings. Either way, I think that DOJ action on these issues would be in everyone's best interest, and if you really want the WMF to shape up you should write to your Senator.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 7th April 2010, 11:00pm
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Does Sanger live under a bushel basket of some kind? Sanger may be as out of it as Jimbo, if he thinks this "Category" on Commons is worth tweeting, but Benjiboi's work on the Crisco article, never made it to his radar screen.

It's Wikia Spanking Art, all over again.

EDIT: Jeez, I just had to take down a link to Commons. I would be breaking the law.

QUOTE
Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.


The punishment:
QUOTE
Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, but, if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, or sex trafficking of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years.


This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 7th April 2010, 11:16pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
John Limey
post Wed 7th April 2010, 11:02pm
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed 8th Jul 2009, 3:04pm
Member No.: 12,473



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th April 2010, 12:00am) *

Does Sanger live under a bushel basket of some kind? Sanger may be as out of it as Jimbo, if he thinks this "Category" on Commons is worth tweeting, but Benjiboi's work on the Crisco article, never made it to his radar screen.


Sanger hardly has any involvement with Wikipedia anymore, and I imagine he has very little knowledge of most goings on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
taiwopanfob
post Thu 8th April 2010, 2:01am
Post #12


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214



QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 7th April 2010, 9:53pm) *

@lsanger Law only covers real photos, not drawings/paintings. It's all legal in the United States See the DOJ report: http://bit.ly/dhMzMo


Don't like url-hiding links, so I have no idea what that link goes to.

I find it amusing though that we have a wiki-admin saying the law doesn't cover drawing/paintings, only to have Greg Kohs cite a law that says it does cover drawings and paintings and any other "visual depiction".

But given the belief this is all legal, it strikes me that the acid test would be for Jimbo, Avicennasis or anyone else who holds this position to have one of those images put onto a t-shirt and re-enter the USA wearing it -- preferably returning from one of the unfortunately notorious south-east asian 'sex tourist' countries. Bonus points for true devotion given out if they also carry a laptop computer containing the entire contents of the Commons category, and proudly display it all to the border people.

"Money, meet mouth."


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Thu 8th April 2010, 2:15am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 8th April 2010, 2:31am
Post #13


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 8th April 2010, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 7th April 2010, 9:53pm) *

@lsanger Law only covers real photos, not drawings/paintings. It's all legal in the United States See the DOJ report: http://bit.ly/dhMzMo


Don't like url-hiding links, so I have no idea what that link goes to.

It goes to http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Thu 8th April 2010, 2:43am
Post #14


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 8th April 2010, 2:01am) *

Don't like url-hiding links, so I have no idea what that link goes to.

I find it amusing though that we have a wiki-admin saying the law doesn't cover drawing/paintings, only to have Greg Kohs cite a law that says it does cover drawings and paintings and any other "visual depiction".

But given the belief this is all legal, it strikes me that the acid test would be for Jimbo, Avicennasis or anyone else who holds this position to have one of those images put onto a t-shirt and re-enter the USA wearing it -- preferably returning from one of the unfortunately notorious south-east asian 'sex tourist' countries. Bonus points for true devotion given out if they also carry a laptop computer containing the entire contents of the Commons category, and proudly display it all to the border people.

"Money, meet mouth."


I asked someone who knows about doujinshi and hentai related to video games and movies (they know about all sorts of Japanese comics) and they said that Japanese get away with having porn of underaged characters by claiming they are over 18 in a disclaimer. I guess it would be hard to verify a cartoon character's age if they aren't real.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Thu 8th April 2010, 2:47am
Post #15


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



Not to defend Commons (I think I've made it clear that it hosts some clearly bad things), but you would have to argue in court that those drawings lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Foundation would argue it is using those drawings for educational purposes. If an illustrator did some work for novel "Lolita," would he be found guilty under the law? I think you have to look at the context of how the drawing is being used before determining if it is promoting pedophilia or merely representing the act. One of the things I was arguing about in the other thread about Commons was that it could be misconstrued as anything but "educational" with its myriad of penis pictures. How can you explain that you need so many representations of a penis, pedophilia, etc. for "educational" purposes? Assume Good Faith does not extend to courts of law.

Legally speaking, can the Foundation or Commons be held liable for hosting any illegal images despite Section 230 or would the uploader and/or illustrator be the only ones to be punished?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Thu 8th April 2010, 3:39am
Post #16


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 8th April 2010, 2:43am) *
I asked someone who knows about doujinshi and hentai ... and they said that Japanese get away with having porn of underaged characters by claiming they are over 18 in a disclaimer. I guess it would be hard to verify a cartoon character's age if they aren't real.

I have been thinking about this recently and I suppose that arguable the imagery could at a stretch be taken symbolically, in that the male readers are looking for the characteristics of immaturity, naivety and submissivity in the women they seek. But, sadly, largely I suspect such a view is just desperate liberal bollocks and they are actually just fantasizing about doing the most utterly objectionable and disgusting sexual perversions to hyper sexualized female children. I spoke recently to one male individual whose school leaders encouraged teachers to date children from amongst the pupils.

Having said all of that, what defines femininity and attractivity in adult Japan women is been bent around this, Vis-à-vis the 'cult of kawaii'.

Hopefully The Sangster will come to know about Wikipedia Review and be willing to enter the fray on such issues as the pedophiliac and extreme sexual agendas turning the Wkipedia into their chosen Pornopedia.

Has anyone on this site had direct contact before?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 8th April 2010, 3:45am
Post #17


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 7th April 2010, 10:39pm) *
Hopefully The Sangster will come to know about Wikipedia Review and be willing to enter the fray on such issues as the pedophiliac and extreme sexual agendas turning the Wkipedia into their chosen Pornopedia.

Has anyone on this site had direct contact before?

Larry Sanger knows about us. I'm afraid he objects very strongly to the idea of his efforts being criticized, and apparently is just as bad as Jimbo and the rest of 'em at referring to people who object to his ideas about crowdsourcing as "trolls."

However, if you think you can convince him, by all means!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Thu 8th April 2010, 4:18am
Post #18


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 8th April 2010, 3:39am) *

I have been thinking about this recently and I suppose that arguable the imagery could at a stretch be taken symbolically, in that the male readers are looking for the characteristics of immaturity, naivety and submissivity in the women they seek. But, sadly, largely I suspect such a view is just desperate liberal bollocks and they are actually just fantasizing about doing the most utterly objectionable and disgusting sexual perversions to hyper sexualized female children. I spoke recently to one male individual whose school leaders encouraged teachers to date children from amongst the pupils.



Well, my example was just about your average Pokemon/Digimon/whatevermonJapanesepornstuff there is. I guess they could say the characters are doing it for humor? I don't know. Maybe those shows aren't really specific about how old Ash and Pikachu are so when they do it it isn't illegal.

I don't really want to know. ;/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 8th April 2010, 4:30am
Post #19


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 7th April 2010, 9:18pm) *
Well, my example was just about your average Pokemon/Digimon/whatevermonJapanesepornstuff there is. I guess they could say the characters are doing it for humor? I don't know. Maybe those shows aren't really specific about how old Ash and Pikachu are so when they do it it isn't illegal.

I don't really want to know. ;/

Read this. Then you'll know....the Wikipedia version.
QUOTE
Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for preventing abuse.[34] An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection,[35] and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[9] This is exemplified in a case involving a man from Virginia who asserted at his arrest that after viewing lolicon at a public library, he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.[36]

Cultural critic Hiroki Azuma said that very few readers of lolicon manga commit crimes. In the otaku culture, lolicon is the "most convenient [form of rebellion]" against society.[8]

Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated and that the reduction of sexual crimes in Japan during that period may have been influenced by a variety of factors they had described in their study.[10]

Sharon Kinsella observed an increase in unsubstantiated accounts of schoolgirl prostitution in the media in the late 1990s, and speculated that these unproven reports developed in counterpoint to the increased reporting on comfort women. She speculated that, "It may be that the image of happy girls selling themselves voluntarily cancels out the other guilty image."[8]
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Thu 8th April 2010, 4:57am
Post #20


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 8th April 2010, 4:30am) *

Read this. Then you'll know....the Wikipedia version.
QUOTE
Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for preventing abuse.[34]



Anyone know what laws in particular? Is it the same law as above?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th 12 14, 3:04pm