Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like to make a remark.
You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the sensibilities "irrational" and "lacking in substance" (inconsistent is fair enough). Clearly, you belong to the group of people who do not have a problem at all with these images, and PM belongs to the group of people that has huge problems with them. The mere fact that you two disagree should not lead to the conclusion we should not think about a way of taking away the problem for the people in side of the spectrum where PM is located. I think you could lay a comparison between people having significant problems with these images and therefore are not able (or less able) to access Wikipedia with people who have technical issues because they do not want to download a piece of propitiatory software. We care a lot about the latter group, why abolish even the idea of caring about the first? Because we do not belong to it? Some people do indeed think that ancient pornography should be hidden as well by the way, although I do get your point. Sometimes there is clearly an educational purpuse involved, and the images add value. Now let it be clear I do not vouch at all for getting rid of the images, or any free content. However, if that would suit a significant group of people, we could consider to make them a little less prominently accessible. Please speak up if the following procedure would make no sense at all to you: 0) think about whether we want (if it exists) to help reduce this group of people with siginificant problems in the first place. 1) research / find research on how large the group of people is that have significant problems with this issue (I define significant here as "having the impact that because of this, they will visit Wikipedia less frequently or not at all") 2) consider which approaches would be possible 3) research which of these approached would be help to decrease the group of people having significant problems with this issue 4) consider whether this has any negative impact for the people not having these significant problems 5) balance these advantages/disadvantages lets not jump to 5) immediately. To get to the original question of PM, I am not sure actually whether the advisory board would have people on it who would be helpful on this specific topic. Angela, could you advise on this? Perhaps this topic could, however, better be approached through the often named Strategy Process. Philippe, do you have a suggestion how this can be incorporated? Thanks, Lodewijk 2009/11/17 Andrew Garrett <agarr...@wikimedia.org>: > > 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&#entry204846 >> >> 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. > > 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 > agarr...@wikimedia.org > http://werdn.us/ > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
