Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Kim Osman 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 it > > whe

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote: > 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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

> 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. >

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Risker 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 image was going

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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 peopl

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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 smokescreen.

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 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 r

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 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 reasoning a charit

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

> > *I really don't know how long CU information is retained * > 3 months. All CU logs are kept for 3 months _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construi

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Morton 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 followed

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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. > I reread the

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 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 followed was a

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Morton 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 > > That can be true, but th

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On 31 May 2012 14:10, Theo10011 wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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, > anal-genital,

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Nathan 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 strange that

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Caroline Becker 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 >> US

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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 primarily

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the 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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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 an

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

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 recor

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On 31 May 2012 09:23, Caroline Becker 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 >> US law, any

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

> > 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 witho

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Laura Hale wrote: > 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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

Here are results of a multimedia search for "human female" in Wikipedia (NSFW): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female Did you look at the examples Larry mentioned in his post? There are many more: e.g. http://e

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman wrote: > My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of > addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at > times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of > pornography goes some wa