Child pornography on WMF sites: The knowns and unknowns


NB: Published by arrangement with Wikipedia Sucks, from their archives, authors unknown, under the terms of their following notice.


LEGAL NOTICE : Content on this page potentially infringing inter-alia upon Wikipedia Sucks (TM) title was previously uploaded by some anonymous persons on Wikipedia Sucks, a Proboards.com forum but was deleted for an unrelated abuse violation of Proboards' Terms of Use. Pursuant to the forum deletion, its deleted content has been retrieved with the specific written assistance / advice / permission of abuse@proboards.com ("the content licencee") and is archived as a social utility and for legal reasons as record and to assist erstwhile members of that forum. Because these archived materials may conceivably be defamatory the readers are given notice and strongly warned against treating it as the truth. {see para 74+ "LOUTCHANSKY - and - THE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS") . Further reproduction of this archived content is disallowed without permission of the content licencee. All non-abuse requests for redaction of content must be made through, and authenticated by, the content licencee, or accompanied by order of a competent court.

Thanks to anonymous internet researchers on a bulletin board, here's a link to the WikMedia Foundation WMF wiki's current publicly available policy document that deals with child pornography on WMF sites. Alexander pointed out in a further comment to the Facebook group that the detailed process the WMF uses is not publicly available.

Post by Flip Flopped on Apr 2, 2016 at 11:48pm

On March 23rd Jan Ainali posted a comment to the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group regarding WMF staff's self-reported level of success/lack of success dealing with images of child pornography on WMF sites. The measure of success/lack of success is part of the October to December 2015 quarterly report posted on Meta.

In a Wikipedia Weekly Facebook comment James Alexander responded to Ainali's post with a critique of the WMF's current policy regarding child pornography. Alexander, who appears to state he is responsible for the quarterly report's metric in this area, also outlined internal WMF obstacles for improving their process of dealing with child pornography.

Here's a link to the WMF Foundation wiki's current publicly available policy document that deals with child pornography on WMF sites. Alexander pointed out in a further comment to the Facebook group that the detailed process the WMF uses is not publicly available.

It appears that Alexander critiques the current internal WMF policy for dealing with child pornography images as being slow: "The current policy is long, process heavy and complicated and we wanted to rewrite it to make it easier to understand and train new staff."

This reinforces my belief that the WMF's ostensible hiring of a child safety officer (Kalliope) was ineffective and for show.


Post by HRA1924 on Apr 10, 2016 at 2:34am

Apr 10, 2016 at 2:22am HRA1924 said:
I wonder what happened to this thread on MetaWiki
Got it.
Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement
Found it from here
Wikilegal
"Although the government may choose not to prosecute § 2257 violations against individual users, its scope remains theoretically broad."


Accordingly, We, the responsible wikipedia critics, must therefore remain vigilant to collectively review and criticise the above-linked WMF policies and WMF's lax approach to controlling child pornography on their "educational" projects.

A word to our critics:
Lord Denning M.R. views on fair dealing, fair comment review and criticism

It is impossible to define what is „fair dealing‟. It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be fair dealing. ... As with fair comment in the law of libel, so with fair dealing in the law of copyright.