On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM, teun spaans <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On the other hand: our mission is to spread knowledge in a free form. Under >> a free license. I think it is NOT our task to combat censorship, or to >> advocate free speech. > > > In fact, restricting the content to only "free content" *is* > self-censorship, in exactly the same way as restricting child pornography > is. There are both moral and legal reasons not to distribute copyright > violations, just like there are both moral and legal reasons not to > distribute child pornography. > > Yes, this requires determining what is and isn't "child pornography", just > like it requires determining what is and isn't "free content". But very > little discussion of the former has taken place.
We see little that is borderline, because it's offensive enough that there aren't many places that it's remotely appropriate in Wikipedia (free speech / information aside). We also are relatively good at following up on reports of illegal activity on-wiki, so there's little motivation to actual criminals to host actually criminal images here. If you have some specific examples of there being a problem with categorizing borderline content, please post them, but my understanding is that both child porn and pedophilia are being effectively and unambiguously identified and stomped on in the infrequent instances that they appear. If there are enough mistakes happening that it's a problem, that should be talked about. But I am not aware of any... -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
