The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of
US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without
On 31 May 2012 09:23, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.com wrote:
The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of
I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list-
Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist
but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who
either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form
of it.
For the
I've found this line of dialogue interesting but have hesitated to
participate. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I arrived with a goal
to bring some balance to many of the articles pertaining to domestic and
international human trafficking and pornography. I soon realized that
pornography
I think this comment completely misses the point. Yes, if you go to
articles on deep throating or tit torture, you will surprise surprise,
see images of those things. I don't see this as a big problem. The
problem would be if the same images were showing up on articles unrelated
to sexuality,
I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my
non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist
interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've
always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him,
focused
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.comwrote:
The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my
non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist
interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've
always thought it
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved
actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or
simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
On 31 May 2012 14:10, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production
involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning
actual or simulated—(i)
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That's pretty important then, right? Because IIRC circuit court decisions
inform judgement in later such cases - and the only way the legal
interpretation can be rejudged is in a full appeals court?
Tom
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of
producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes,
reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get
complicated. What
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to
images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit
conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward.
To the list administrators: Would it be possible to have this list archived
on gossamer-threads, like the Foundation list?
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/
It's a much more convenient format to refer back to than the monthly
archive page.
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their
username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no
real world link without the IP records.
Firstly, that's not the sort of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on
their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is
no real
This may be an interesting tangent, but it doesn't really bear on the
responsibility of Wikimedia or its projects. While others may have both
legal and moral obligations, Wikimedia certainly has moral obligations with
or without potential legal liability. The legal arguments are just a
Okay, I'm going to try to redirect this thread a bit from the long, drawn
out discussion about legal requirements for model releases of explicit
images (and the related record keeping), because I think that is only one
small aspect of issues.
I agree with those who say there is a low risk of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive
campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other
non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know
that their
* Laura Hale wrote:
There was a real feeling amongst some people that this was a
red-herring type issue that was taking away valuable time and resources
from doing activities towards increasing female participation on Wikimedia
related projects, and that to a certain degree, the obsession with
From: Risker
On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive
campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF
repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their
image was going to be made available on Commons. I
What I'd like to see, and what I don't think has been done before, is a
survey of editors as they are editing. By that I mean, when someone saves
an edit, a box asks them What was the purpose of your edit? What made you
decide to make this edit? If it was to correct an error, how were you
alerted
Hi Andreas,
I think the current archival system, while not as manageable as
Gossmer-Threads, is fine. We've had enough issues with privacy concerns
on this public list, and I'd rather keep this list public yet still
maintain what little bit of safety and privacy we can.
If the members of
On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better
tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that
not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as
much info as possible to make them a contributor,
When I did my oh so not scientific survey about women who edit Wikipedia
last year (and it was not an official WMF survey, this was just done by
me, a concerned editor, and the process has changed since then, so don't
plan on doing your own without going through WMF research processes,
now)
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because
of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in
the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's
On May 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as
sexualized
Dear colleagues,
There is one reason, and one reason alone, that I have not gotten into the fray
about appropriateness of images and some text in Wikipedia. The reason is the
discussion ends up on the internet and any search for my name will turn up all
the details of everyone's comments.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between
the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you
* John Vandenberg wrote:
What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a
better understanding of
* why women don't contribute?
* what would help them contribute?
* other?
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan
/b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as
the saying, There are no girls on the Internet. As you'll no doubt see if
you navigate to the
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist
behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
I agree!
Pete, Kaldari and others have fought the good fight about that. I think some
Things were developed on Commons and we tried to get more folks involved to no
avail. I can't provide links this second.
I tried my best with model releases (I worked in fashion and photography before
I was a
Andreas,
ffs can we have one thread where we don't talk about porn. Or if you
do think porn is a part of the gendergap, pose research questions
which will help test your hypothesis, because that is what this thread
is about.
I want research questions I can put to real academics.
Not bullshit
Hi,
I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing
Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on
Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it
when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to
pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in
particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women
editors. Perhaps you
I thought it'd be refreshing to have a positive thread and something
less-...porny, if you will :)
*What have /you/ been working on? In any language, on any sister project
of Wikimedia? Online and offline? What are you doing to be proactive or
contributing as a volunteer, fellow, staff
On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to
pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in
particular is having a
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer
not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't
discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that
pornography
* I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to pro-porn
culture when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this
issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion
over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote:
Hi,
I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing
Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on
Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across
41 matches
Mail list logo
