Slashdot Log In
Wikimedia Censors Wikinews
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat May 17, 2008 12:18 PM
from the because-they-can dept.
from the because-they-can dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has revealed that the Wikimedia Foundation Board (which controls Wikipedia and Wikinews) has killed off a Wikinews report into the Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation lawsuit. Wikinews is a collaborative news site and is meant to be editorially independent from the WMF. The WMF office also suppressed a Wikinews investigation into child and other pornography on Wikipedia, which was independently covered by ValleyWag and other outlets this week. The US Communications Deceny Act section 230 grants providers of internet services (such as the Wikipedia and Wikinews) immunity from legal action related to their user-generated content provided they do not exercise pre-publication control. In deleting articles critical of the WMF prior to publication, Wikileaks says the Wikimedia Foundation may have set a dangerous precedent that could remove all of its CDA section 230 immunity (at least for Wikinews, where the control was exercised)."
Related Stories
Submission: Wikimedia censors Wikinews over Bauer case, porn by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm just guessing (Score:2, Insightful)
Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, but we need to find out the background of who done this censorship, to find out if someone if trying to game the legal system, to open up Wikimedia Foundation Board to easier and more legal action.
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Informative)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And let's face it, the top management at Wikipedia (and many other organizations) often do a lot a stupid things despite themselves.
Also talk about FUD; the "child pornography" they were talking about is of album art from a famous heavy metal rock band:
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this article talks abous censorship but it looks like this "investigation" is the one trying to apply warped USA "morals" to what the (worldwide) users of Wikipedia can and cannot see or include in the articles.
Maybe you should set up a firewall like China so you're not exposed to "dangerous" ideas, such as the fact that women have breasts?
Australia got the convicts, the USA got the puritans. It's pretty obvious who drew the short straw.
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the movie they have centaurs, real actors/actress from the navel up, CGI'd on to horse bodies. The women centaurs have bikini tops on, but the children didn't have any covering. They all had long hair, as well, so in many quick shots I couldn't tell whether I was looking at a pre-teen centaur male or female.
Now, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have put a naked ten year old girl on screen... but the fact that I couldn't even tell the difference was interesting to me, as I ruminated on censorship. If they had shown a young girl, it would have not looked different in any significant way. It would probably take a freeze-frame and keen eye to tell whether that was a boy or a girl... but still, the director would have been crucified.
Or what if it was a young, bare-chested boy actor, but the character was a young female centaur? Child Porn? Best jail everyone involved, just to be sure we're safe. Ok, I've talked myself into posting this as an anonymous coward.
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
Yes if you can "keep your head" in a time of moral frenzy then you are indeed wise.
Thanks for your comment,
UTW
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:4, Interesting)
To which I've always said: "Just because someone appears to be stupid does not mean they're not malevolent."
In fact, pretending to be ignorant is usually one of the primary defenses used by those who cause the most harm. From the common proclamations: "I never went to their house and I don't know how he fell three times onto a knife with my fingerprints" to the common practice of creating "plausible deniability" to protect corporate or governmental leaders before illegal activity takes place. I'm not saying I know the solution, just that looking the other way because someone might be stupid is not it.
As for the whole child-porn motive that's bandied about so much lately, it's a very effective tool used by politicians to get any disgusting regulations passed in congress. No one wants to look like they are pro-child porn and will always vote to pass any bill that clams it's needed to combat child porn. Thus politicians need to keep a healthy fear that child porn is everywhere in the public eye so that people demand that something be done.
Parent
OK... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OK... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that all of the above sites are managed using the MediaWiki [mediawiki.org] software.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. WikiLeaks is reporting that Wikinews suppressed an article on Wikipeida about WikiPorn? Now, the WikiInvestigators are ....I've gone cross eyed...
I think, and this is just my personal musing, the wikipedia has become devalued as a source for unbiased information because of all the 'goings on' there. Yes, I still use it, but find myself checking other online resources more, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. If WP wants to regain any of it's reputation it needs, basically, to clean up it's act.
Re:OK... (Score:4, Funny)
What's next, telephones you can put in your pocket??
Parent
Incidentally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do I find this really unsurprising? (Score:2, Funny)
Who deleted the articles? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the Deletion log (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Some more digging (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia Signpost has another take [wikipedia.org] on the porno conflict.
Parent
Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I can't say I disapprove of the deletion of nude underage children in sexual contexts on Wikipedia, or of the decisions of moderators to override group votes on such manners. (Note the "group vote" was likely by music fans in regard to a specific album cover. What do you *think* their vote would be? Duh.) I'm not a prude or anything, but there's no real need to show some of the images they discussed. If you want those images, they're likely just a few clicks away elsewhere on the net anyhow. It seems that Wikipedia should cater to a wide audience, with content appropriate for all ages. Even the most adult of subjects can be handled in a way that makes it appropriate for all ages of the audience without diminishing its usefulness as a research tool.
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Informative)
The Bible-bashers should punish their kids. It's not Wikipedia's problem if their kids are looking up autofellatio on Wikipedia (one of their other complaints).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not normal to see the picture and run round screaming about paedophilia while calling the thought police.
Remember Nevermind [wikipedia.org], by Nirvana? It has a picture of a baby boy, you can see his penis. At the time 'Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."'
Do you remember what your own penis looked like when you were 5? Haha! You're a paedophile now, because you're imagining a 5-year-old's penis!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's art. Do you find it sexually attractive? I don't. It's normal to see a naked child and not be aroused, that's one reason adults look different to children.
Sorry, if you don't understand the difference between a naked child and a child posed in a sexually suggestive manner, I can't help you.
I have no problems with naked children running around the beach like is common in Europe. There is nothing sexual there, and the paranoia about that in north america is ridiculous.
This cover is not innocent nakedness. It's obviously meant to be a suggestive pose, and I don't think that's ok.
Remember Nevermind [wikipedia.org], by Nirvana? It has a picture of a baby boy, you can see his penis.
The fact that you're comparing those two pictures shows you don't understand the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a child swimming. That's how they swim. At the beach, even. It's not "obviously meant to be a suggestive pose" since it's not, in fact, obvious.
If it's suggestive of anything, it's of flying. That's what I thoug
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
>How about the sick sexual pose that this naked 10-year old child is in?
That's a sexual pose for you, but not for her, for her it's just being naked.
Linking nakedness to sex is what adults do in our culture, not children.
So the 'sick sexual' part is in your mind only.. And do remember that the link from nudity to sex is just a cultural thing: nudist don't have sex all day, there are African tribes where they are naked all the time (except their ankle which are taboos), etc.
And surprise, surprise, the taboos in the 70s were different than they are nowadays..
How shameful
Parent
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, repeating "sick" and "sexual" in every one of your replies only highlights the fact that you consider it sick and sexual, as renoX suggested [slashdot.org], not that it actually is sick and sexual by an objective third-party judgment.
Given this issue is so intertwined with ones subjective views of morality, we must ask ourselves, what is an objective measure of "exploitation"? I'll save you long hours, perhaps years of reflection: harm. Was the child harmed in any way, either physically, or psychologically? This is the only important question.
If a child came to harm from a parental decision, then the parents' right to raise their child in any way they see fit is forfeited. Until then, yes, the parents can consent to her doing a naked shoot.
Now, are you going to track down the girl that posed for that cover, assuming there was one, and ascertain whether she was harmed? If she was, then I agree 100% that the cover should be removed. If no such harm exists, then there is no reason to suppress it. Harm is determined on a case-by-case basis, it is not a categorical classification that all things of a certain nature are inherently bad.
The fact that you consider censorship and oppression a valid tool to achieve an entirely personal agenda is not only disheartening, it's frightening.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, assuming they used a real model (looks like they did), shes got to be about 40 by now, wonder what she thinks off all this crap
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Take, for example, the movie "Pretty Baby". A 1978 movie, nominated for an Oscar and directed by the celebrated Louis Malle. It has scenes of a naked then 12 year old Brook Shields. I assume the movie is now banned and you'll never get to see it, but at the time it was considered art, and was not especially controversial. (Note also that the 70's were an age where people were more politicized, and human rights and the errors of the past were in the forefront -- and yet, few people had a problem with this movie at the time.)
Bear in mind also if you are an American you age of consent is waay higher than most other countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm in NO WAY advocating exploitation or child porn, but you do need to realise that society has been completely manipulated by the media in this respect. And, importantly, those views have changed beyond all recognition in a short space of time.
And bringing this back on topic, the one vestige of the media that SHOULD be free, and trustworthy -- namely the "wiki-branded" sites -- sadly, are actually some of the least trustworthy and most unreliable sources of information. Not because of "vandalism" or amateur users, but wholly because of deliberate manipulation by cabals and wikiadmins. The buck stops in each and every case with Jimbo Wales, and his reputation and (lack of) integrity has been well discussed here. This article is just one more example of why "wiki" anything must NEVER be trusted, it's just as biased and manipulated as News Corps International media.
Parent
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Informative)
I saw the cut version a few years later and quite frankly I couldn't see what the problem was, but what do I know.
Compare Pretty Baby to Blue Lagoon, another prepubescent skin flick featuring Brooke Shields (this woman sure knew what she was doing I guess). Same controversy, pretty much. Even more so in the early 80s because the prude movement was starting to grow exponentially by then in response to the perceived excesses of the 60s and 70s.
But Pretty Baby was a huge deal back in the day.
OK, now I'll go back to playing Pong on my PDP-10.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a naked child in a sexually suggestive position. That makes it child porn by definition, no matter what American "free speech" cultists say.
I disagree. This does not fit the definition of pornography (from the American Heritage Dictionary, and others): "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." The primary purpose of this picture is clearly not "to cause sexual arousal," but to illustrate the lyrics of the album's title song, and of course to get attention (which would make the purpose "marketing.")
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how does this picture manage to get so much attention? By its intention to caus
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because the contrast depicted is jarring. As you say, the pose is suggestive, but the individual is lacking in sexual appeal because she's not mature. The image is intended to be jarring, not sexually arousing. A fine distinction perhaps, but an important one.
Child porn is intended to be sexually arousing. This is art.
Parent
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
ValleyWag? (Score:2)
This was on Ars Technica weeks ago. (Score:5, Informative)
Ars Technica had this story weeks ago. [arstechnica.com] EFF has filed a motion to quash [eff.org] (EFF site currently overloaded), and they'll probably win.
As Ars Technica points out, the effect of this lawsuit is to widely disseminate the information that this little-known literary agency is a dud.
limits to CDA 230 immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
in part:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could someone please point me to where the info comes from that pre-publication editing broadly affects CDA 230 immunity?
The hallucinations of the article author?
Prior to CDA, US case law was converging on a problematic standard. It was looking like providers at all layers would be held legally responsible for defamatory or otherwise illegal content carried on their facilities if they practiced any prior restraint at all or if they engaged in ex post facto removal of content that was less than perfect, with a lot of fuzziness in how strong an editorial approach would trigger liability. Exercising editorial control of a
Wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
You cannot access the following Web address:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_Wikipedia_pornography_investigation [wikileaks.org]
The site you requested is blocked under the following categories: Hate Speech, Historical Revisionism, Extreme
You can:
Use your browser's Back button or enter a different Web address to continue.
The powers of be must HATE that site. I don't think the Historial Revisionism thing even exists on Smartfilter's official list of categories to censor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After reading the summary... (Score:3, Funny)
From the article: (Score:3, Funny)
230 Applies Even if Content is Controlled (Score:4, Informative)
Please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A publishing agency (and not some poor innocent lady named Barbara Bauer) with known questionable reputation and practices has pressed charges against Wikimedia Foundation for reporting on these practices.
The plaintiff call Wikipedia's reports "libel". The judge might call them "the truth about Barbara Bauer". Noone really knows before the case is settled.
Then, Wikinews is reporting on this case. And due to the way the editing process that define Wikinews works, the reports on the case was most likely written by a unrelated volunteer contributor somewhere and not approved by the lawyers of Electronic Frontier Foundation's, who handles the case for Wikinews. The reports might even have quoted the supposed libelous statements.
Now, Wikinews is owned by Wikimedia Foundation. Legally, Wikinews and its articles is the Wikimedia Foundation. In other words, the Wikipedia Foundation may (involuntarily) be publicly repeating the reports a questionable publishing agency have pressed charged over.
How will the judge respond when he or she sees the Wikimedia Foundation repeating what might be offense under investigation, after the lawsuit was filed?
Is it really wrong of Wikimedia Foundation to reverse reports they have been sued over, while the case is still pending?
I don't know the details; if any has anything to add to the above assessment, please, fill us in.
False claims: pre-publication control (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the Wikinews article was not deleted prior to publication. All Wikinews articles, even ones in development, are accessible by the public, and are therefore "published" in the sense of the law. Articles in development are simply not placed in as prominent of positions on the site as those which are considered to be finished.
The claim that the Wikimedia Foundation exerts pre-publication control over Wikinews articles is therefore false. Merely because the Wikinews site may refer to some publicly-accessible articles as "published" and other publicly-accessible articles as "in development" does not change the fact that both classes of articles are, for legal purposes, published: that is, intentionally placed in the public view.
Re:Wiki WikiWiki WikiWikiWiki Wiki WikiWik WikiWik (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the so-called "child pornography" controversy covers many areas, some of which have apparently solid reasoning behind them, others of which does not.
Let us start with the simplest case, production of pornographic images involving children, who actively do not consent. Obviously that involves direct exploit of children, and is not acceptable. There is virtually no controversy over that.
But what about the cases of photos taken of minors who are over the age of consent, and in fact do consent. The argu