Wikipedia embroiled in child pornography allegations

[Jom]

Source

Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia

Page last updated at 13:22 GMT, Monday, 10 May 2010 14:22 UK

Jimmy Wales has revoked some of his Wikipedia founder's privileges
A row over sexually explicit content on the web encyclopaedia Wikipedia and related sites has escalated.

Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation.

Mr Wales had previously urged the removal of "pornographic" content from the user-generated site.

This followed a complaint about "child pornography" to the FBI from another Wikipedia co-founder.

In early April, the estranged co-founder, Larry Sanger, reported Wikimedia Commons to the FBI, alleging that the organisation was "knowingly distributing child pornography".

He later clarified that his concern was not about photographs of children, but "obscene visual representations of the abuse of children", which can include drawings and sculpture.

Sexually explicit content
Last week, administrators of Wikimedia Commons, a media file store widely used for Wikipedia articles, deleted hundreds of images.

Some images deemed by the Wikipedia community to have educational merit have since been reinstated.

Mr Wales had earlier posted his support for the removal of "images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests", deleting many pictures himself.

Pressure on the organisation had increased after Fox News reported the story, contacting a number of high-profile corporate donors to the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and related sites.

It asked whether the donors were aware of "the extent of sexually explicit content" on Wikimedia Commons.

"The central question is whether the content is educational" - Michael Peel, Chair, Wikimedia UK

It is not clear whether Mr Wales's support for the removal of explicit content was in response to Mr Sanger's concerns, pressure from Fox News, or something else.

But Michael Peel, Chair of Wikimedia UK, told BBC News that a continuous debate over explicit content has recently "come to a head". The central issue at the moment, he says, is "whether the content is educational".

"Anyone can come to Wikimedia Commons and upload media. Illegal stuff is deleted, and copyright stuff is deleted."

Mr Wales has faced criticism from the band of volunteers who help to maintain the site, some of whom argued that the decision to delete was undemocratic and taken too quickly. They also expressed concerns that valid material might be deleted accidentally.

On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons.

In a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list he said this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted".

A more detailed policy statement from the Wikimedia Foundation is expected in the coming days.

I've bolded the parts I find most interesting.

Personally I find Fox's meddling and attempts to be crusaders irritating at best. Of course corporate donors are going to be aware that by Wikipedia/Wikicommons' very nature that anyone will be able to upload things but, as stated, these things are very tightly controlled and they crack down on copyright infringement extremely rapidly.

[Trax]

Wikipedia has also been criticized for allowing graphic sexual content such as images and videos of :wub: and ejaculation as well as photos from hardcore pornographic films found on its articles. Child protection campaigners say graphic sexual content appears on many Wikipedia entries, displayed without any warning or age verification.[81]

The Wikipedia article Virgin Killer – a 1976 album from German heavy metal band Scorpions – features a picture of the album's original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The original release cover caused controversy and was replaced in some countries. In December 2008, access to the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was blocked for four days by most Internet service providers in the United Kingdom, after it was reported by a member of the public as child pornography.[82] The Internet Watch Foundation, a nonprofit, nongovernment-affiliated organization, criticized the inclusion of the picture as "distasteful".[83]

In April 2010, Larry Sanger wrote a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, outlining his concerns that two categories of images on Wikimedia Commons contained child pornography, and were in violation of U.S. federal obscenity law.[84] Sanger later clarified that the images, which were related to pedophilia and one about lolicon, were not of real children, but said that they constituted "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children," under the PROTECT Act of 2003.[85] That law bans photographic child pornography and cartoon images and drawings of children that are obscene under American law.[85] Sanger also expressed concerns about access to the images on Wikipedia in schools.[86] Wikipedia strongly rejected Sanger's accusation.[87] Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh said that Wikipedia doesn't have "material we would deem to be illegal. If we did, we would remove it."[87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...Sexual_content