> On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, >> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved >> in >> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably >> describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). >> >> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry2048 >> 46 >> >> I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see >> better >> governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we >> need to >> talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're >> overdue. >> >> I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue >> - is >> there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or >> could I >> just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory >> board's ear to raise this with them.
on 11/17/09 5:37 AM, Andrew Garrett at agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: > > You just won't give up this topic, will you? > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate > for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity > and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent, > irrational and entirely lacking in substance. > > I'm also unsure how you propose to define "sexually explicit". The > definitions under law are elaborate, attempting to make distinctions > that would be irrelevant to any negative impact on children, if one > existed. Are images of the statue of David, the Mannekin Pis or the > Ecstacy of Theresa deserving of such restrictions? What about the > detailed frescoes of sexual acts displayed in brothels and living > rooms in ancient Pompeii and Herculaneum? How are those distinct from > the image you've used as an example, and how is that distinction > relevant to whatever supposed harm you are claiming to children? > > If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on > such images, then those children should be supervised in their > internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the > internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) > believe is appropriate. > > It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the > Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or > usage, and certainly not to make arbitrary rules regarding said usage > on the basis of a single culture's sensibilities on children and > sexuality, especially sensibilities as baseless and harmful as this one. > > -- > Andrew Garrett > Yes. Very well said, Andrew. Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
