Slashdot Log In
Wikimedia Censors Wikinews
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Saturday May 17, @01:18PM
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
Firehose:Wikimedia censors Wikinews over Bauer case, porn by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
OK... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Re:OK... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that all of the above sites are managed using the MediaWiki [mediawiki.org] software.
Reply to This
Parent
Incidentally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
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).
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
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!
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Hmm... what to do... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
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
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
limits to CDA 230 immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
in part:
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
230 Applies Even if Content is Controlled (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Re:Wiki WikiWiki WikiWikiWiki Wiki WikiWik WikiWik (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
From the Deletion log (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Some more digging (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia Signpost has another take [wikipedia.org] on the porno conflict.
Reply to This
Parent
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:
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
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
Reply to This
Parent