Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikimedia Censors Wikinews

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

Censorship 180

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)."

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm just guessing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446524)

But is this due to a gag order? It seems likely.

Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446526)

To cover news on WikiNews without censorship?

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446624)

"Do we need a WikiNewsNews To cover news on WikiNews without censorship?"

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? (4, Informative)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446830)

I wonder how much of this is just a thoughtless mistake. Wikipedia itself has a quote in (at least) one of it's help sections (pertaining to article editing):
"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:

The cover is from a 1976 album of the Scorpions titled 'Virgin Killer' and has the image of an underage girl, posing nude, with an crack crossing over her genitals, but nothing blocking out her breasts. The girl appears to be around 10-years-old.
- Ref. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_Wikipedia_pornography_investigation [wikileaks.org]

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447248)

There's a reason why nothing is "blocking out her breasts": because she doesn't have breasts. And breasts are visible in just about every soap ad in Europe, plus half of Renaissance nude paintings and sculptures depict "underage" (meaning under-18) models, so what is the big deal? The girl in the CD cover has already said she's perfectly fine with it. Maybe she needs a good dose of therapy to convince her that she's been abused.

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.

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447346)

Which just goes to show everyone how freaking insane this "pedo" witch hunt is getting: It is a freaking Scorpions album cover people!!!! What is next, are they going to lock up everyone who has the original Blind Faith album, since it has a topless 14 year old holding an airplane? It isn't like we all don't know what real kiddie porn is, and IMHO it is truly the height of insanity to compare a 70's album cover to horribly abused children. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447406)

OMG, you've just found more child porn on Wikipedia! Quick, someone must censor your message!

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (5, Interesting)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447432)

Your reply and the previous anon reply are very appreciated. Your perceptions are accurate but in the minority (and so are especially appreciated). When I read your post I was thinking of the Rudyard Kipling poem If:

If you can keep your head when all about you
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: ...
... Slashdotters can Google for the rest.

Yes if you can "keep your head" in a time of moral frenzy then you are indeed wise.

Thanks for your comment,

UTW

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (4, Interesting)

slarrg (931336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447572)

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.

Re:Do we need a WikiNewsNews? (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447652)

There's a lot I could say about your comment(s), but to put it simply; things are always more complex than they appear. People like to pigeonhole things, and so it goes...

"Ignorance is not an excuse" is obviously an effective methodology when used by politicians (and the Powerful, who have professionals vetting them). Ignorance is of course a reality, especially considering that laws and regulations are becoming more plentiful. Today (it seems) even the average person needs a lawyer to know and understand if they are violating a particular law, and even in that case one must hope that the lawyer is up-to-date on the current laws and regulations, and is sufficiently intelligent enough to interpret them (or more specifically intuitive enough to know how a Court of Law may interpret these laws and regulations).

There are too many laws IMHO. Unfortunately this is the trend.

OK... (5, Funny)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446542)

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...

Re:OK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446938)

Man, totally wikiwicked this wikistuff. Thank God we haven't seen wikigoatcx yet.

Beware the Wiki Tiki Foundation: (0, Offtopic)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447754)

WTF

Re:OK... (4, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446968)

You actually missed one of the wiki* in this conflict. In particular, Wikileaks [wikileaks.org] is reporting that the Wikimedia Foundation [wikimedia.org] is suppressing a news item on Wikinews [wikinews.org] about Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

It's also worth noting that all of the above sites are managed using the MediaWiki [mediawiki.org] software.

Two words ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447198)

... wiki wiki.

Two more words ... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447220)

... wiki wiki.
Shut up [youtube.com] [0:39].

Re:Two more words ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447896)

HAHHHAH! If I had mod points... I wonder how many people got that one without going to YouTube.

Re:OK... (3, Insightful)

Mr6 (824590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447420)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447600)

It's time to let the wikinesses speak for themselves

Incidentally... (5, Interesting)

MessedRocker (1273148) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446558)

Wikinews used to have its own embargo on reporting about Wikipedia, because they were giving disproportionate weight to Wikipedia in the news. In fact, it even led to -- I think it was the Washington Post -- referring to Wikinews as "the news website about Wikipedia". We Wikinewsies collectively ground our teeth when we heard the fruit of our labors described like that.

Re:Incidentally... (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447490)

While they do still carry disproportionate amounts of wikipedia news, its no worse than any other internet based news, its not that bad any more. In fact i've started to quite like wikinews as its editors are free of delitionist scum it feels like wikipedia used to, free, open & willing to take contributions. Wikimedia tightening the reins is a real shame as i suspect it will end up like wikipedia, good but irritating in that it could be so much better

Why do I find this really unsurprising? (2, Funny)

Velorium (1068080) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446564)

Wikiwars 2008. Let the trolls and slander begin.

Wiki WikiWiki WikiWikiWiki Wiki WikiWik WikiWiki (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446574)

That being aside, who cares? All this drama over an encyclopedia-like site.

Re:Wiki WikiWiki WikiWikiWiki Wiki WikiWik WikiWik (4, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446710)

That being aside, who cares? All this drama over an encyclopedia-like site.
And it isn't even Encyclopedia Dramatica [encycloped...matica.com] ...

Who deleted the articles? (2, Interesting)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446580)

Where can you see that the articles were actually deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation and not by the Wikinews community?

From the Deletion log (4, Informative)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446732)

I had a look in the in the deletion log [wikinews.org] .

# 22:51, 9 May 2008 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) deleted "Child pornography scandal erupts on Wikipedia; FBI to investigate" (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikinews:Story preparation/Child pornography scandal erupts on Wikipedia; FBI to investigate' (and the only contributor was 'DragonFire1024'))
# 22:33, 9 May 2008 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikinews:Story preparation/Child pornography scandal erupts on Wikipedia; FBI to investigate" (Factually incorrect, Valleywag is not credible)
So it seems the article was not deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation but by an Wikinews admin.

Some more digging (4, Informative)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446776)

The Wikinews discussion about the story is here [wikinews.org] .

Wikipedia Signpost has another take [wikipedia.org] on the porno conflict.

Hmm... what to do... (4, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446644)

I obviously can see the censorship issues in the first article. We're talking about an individual trying to use the legal system to squelch her deservedly bad reputation in business dealings. Welcome to the information age, lady. News of bad deals travels fast now.

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... (4, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446880)

You should probably look at the album cover and decide for yourself whether it's child pornography or not. Here it is [wikipedia.org] .

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).

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0, Troll)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446900)

You should probably look at the album cover and decide for yourself whether it's child pornography or not. Here it is.

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.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (2, Insightful)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446946)

How was this ever allowed on an album cover?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0, Troll)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447014)

How was this ever allowed on an album cover?

It was made in 1976. Pedophilia was quite in fashion back then.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447160)

no we were just less puritanical uptight prudes back then, and covering the models genitals was enough, it was still racy, but not illegal (then anyway). you'll also notice theres two version of that cover, the import from japan had her nipples whited out so there was no detail there. (German version didn't bother to do that)

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 :D

Re:Hmm... what to do... (5, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447244)

How was this ever allowed on an album cover?
It was made in 1976. Pedophilia was quite in fashion back then.
That's in fact sort of true. The truth is that public perception of what's acceptable has been completely distorted in the past 15-20 years or so -- exclusively in English speaking countries -- and mostly by News Corps International media - Fox News, The Sun, etc, etc.

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.

Age of consent NOT "waay higher" (2, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447474)

The age of consent in the United States varies from 16 to 18. With exceptions for teachers, parents, and others in authority, it's 16 in more than half the states.

In most countries the age of consent is 14-18. It's lower in a few and higher in a few. 16 is not "waay higher" than 14.

The differences between the white-English-speaking and non-English-speaking and non-white world:
* we are generally more prudish, especially about nude art
* "15 will get you 20" instead of a few months
* The enforced close-in-age exceptions are narrower. A 20 year old man with his 14 year old fiancee here would face prosecution, elsewhere he will be given a shotgun wedding.
* More than a few nude photos of infants and toddlers in your family scrap-book will get you thrown in jail.
* Teens sharing pictures of themselves with their friends get prosecuted

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447702)

Have you considered the possibility that you're a moron? If you want to go on a rant, you'd better make sure that the topics you bring up have any connection to reality. I mean it took almost five seconds to put "pretty baby amazon.com" into Yahoo and click on the first link in the results. Saying it hardly raised an eyebrow is in complete contrast to all the editorial reviews of the movie that state it was controversial.

Finally there is no single age of consent in America. There are a whole bunch of different rules as the age of consent is determined by the states. According to this chart [avert.org] , in general the US compares pretty much evenly with the majority of the world.

That's like three strikes right there. I guess you're out.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447506)

and in the early 80s by other bands [wikipedia.org] . It was a different age, child porn was art and even terrorists were romantic freedom fighters with a cause.

Things are different now. I blame the internet.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

skraps (650379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447036)

Officer, she told me she was 18! Honest!

Re:Hmm... what to do... (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447118)

How was this ever allowed on an album cover?
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.

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!

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0, Troll)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447150)

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.

So do you think it's normal to force a ten year old to pose naked for the camera in a sexually suggestive position, for a public of millions?

Would you want that to happen to your daughter?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447240)

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.

So do you think it's normal to force a ten year old to pose naked for the camera in a sexually suggestive position, for a public of millions?

Would you want that to happen to your daughter?

Who said she was forced to do it? (It would surprise me if she was). Please stop pulling arguments out of your ass okay, thank you.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447540)

Who said she was forced to do it? (It would surprise me if she was).

Have you ever heard of the term "age of consent"? What gives you the sick idea that a ten year old is capable of consenting to being sexually exploited?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447630)

What gives you the sick idea she was sexually exploited?

And why do you keep hiding from the two facts that both she, and her parents, agreed to the shoot?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1, Troll)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447820)

What gives you the sick idea she was sexually exploited?

How about the sick sexual pose that this naked 10-year old child is in?

And why do you keep hiding from the two facts that both she, and her parents, agreed to the shoot?

So the sexual exploitation for children for marketing purposes is perfectly allright as long as the parents agree to it?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447742)

Yeah, its a term that applies to sexual intercourse, right? Do you see a penis or anything remotely resembling one in this picture? If so, you probably should have your head examined.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447282)

Did you even bother to read the article? The girl in question was fine with posing for the photo, and still is.

Did you know that many (if not most) nude paintings and sculptures made during the Renaissance used "underage" models?

Are you aware of the fact that humans are born naked?

Maybe you're the one who needs to examine his feelings when it comes to naked children...

It's worse than that (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447554)

One of the first things most child-abusing obstetricians do after delivery is spank the poor baby!

Thank goodness for childhood amnesia [wikipedia.org] or we'd all be neurotic recovering child-abuse victims!

Oh wait....

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447578)

Did you even bother to read the article? The girl in question was fine with posing for the photo, and still is.

Have you ever heard of the term "age of consent"? What gives you the idea that a ten year old is capable of being sexually exploited? Consent is not retroactive, it doesn't matter what she thinks about it now. She might have blocked out the trauma.

Did you know that many (if not most) nude paintings and sculptures made during the Renaissance used "underage" models?

So evil that happened centuries ago justifies evil happening now?

Are you aware of the fact that humans are born naked?

Are you aware that children are not born as sexual beings, but that they develop sexuality during puberty? This was a sexual pose that no normal ten year old would even conceive of, let alone voluntarily assume. If this girl voluntarily put herself in front of the camera in this heavily suggestive position, it means she was probably sexually abused throughout her childhood (which happened a lot in the sixties and seventies since pedophilia was quite fasionable, especially in high society "artistic" circles). So I actually hope she was forced into it, because the alternative suggests something far worse.

Maybe you're the one who needs to examine his feelings when it comes to naked children...

The same right back atcha, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I hope you don't have children.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447656)

You do realize you're the uptight asshole everyone on Slashdot yells about, right?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447710)

So evil that happened centuries ago justifies evil happening now?

Only if you don't believe that humans are capable of evolution and that we're exactly the same now as we were centuries ago. If you believe something in mankind has changed, then it's entirely possible that things that were compatible with our existance then are no longer compatible now.

would even conceive of, let alone voluntarily assume

Yeah, these days the sick rapists put little girls in leotards and force them to dance around and perform gymnastics for their pleasure.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447296)

Assuming the child wasn't kidnapped and FORCED to do that, then either the child, her parents or both found the modelling acceptable.

Your making the likely incorrect assumption that one or more parties were unwilling.

Adult nude models are art, but as soon as the model is below a certain age its no longer art its child porn and we must protect the children from all the monsters out there oh mu god wont somebody please think of the children!

Why don't you relax, realize that theres no exploitation in a simple nude model (not even completely nude either, what a conveniently placed bullet hole!) and understand that the image is doing exactly what its supposed to, no not pander to paedophiles you single minded idiot, its marketing, it was designed to attract attention. Look it worked! 30 years later were still talking about it!

(how utterly fitting, the capta is diatribe)

Re:Hmm... what to do... (4, Insightful)

joeman3429 (1288786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447350)

it doesn't matter what we want for our daughters. Ask the girl (now woman) what she thinks, and ask her parents. Our opinions don't matter

Re:Hmm... what to do... (2, Insightful)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447434)

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 difference at all. That picture is just a picture. There is no deliberate sexual pose involved. It's basically just a picture of a child at play. The issue is not black and white like you are portraying it.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447288)

Because normal people do not find 11 year olds sexually attractive?

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447442)

The FBI allowed it so it would draw out closet pedos like yourself.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (3, Interesting)

rundgren (550942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447096)

You should probably look at the album cover and decide for yourself whether it's child pornography or not. Here it is.

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:Hmm... what to do... (2, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447718)

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.")

And how does this picture manage to get so much attention? By its intention to cause sexual arousal. QED.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (2, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447108)

I think you misunderstand my intention and objection. It's not from a moralistic standpoint, simply an issue of standards. I couldn't care less whether someone does or doesn't think this is a good or bad thing - that's obviously culturally dependent. In countries with more open nudity, this would not be a big deal. However, this is the English wikipedia we're talking about, which indicate a largely American audience (among many others of course). I think an encyclopedia can inform while adhering to some of the cultural sensitivities of the audience, that's all. Wikipedia would be in no way diminished if those images were not displayed. It took me all of 5 seconds to find the picture elsewhere on the net.

Regarding autofellatio, exactly why is it necessary to show a photo AND an illustration of the act? (sigh, yes, I went to the Wikipedia site to see for myself) Is the English language insufficient to describe it accurately?

Honestly, I'd guess that most of this stuff is just flamebait at its finest. Getting others riled up is a common Internet past-time, but I guess I'd just rather not see Wikipedia used as the medium for this purpose.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

joeman3429 (1288786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447386)

but autofellatio is a part of human knowledge, and isn't (as far as I know) harmful to anyone. Therefore any RESPECTABLE encyclopedia will have an article on it. Why not pictures? Granted the drawing isn't of very high quality, but whatever

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447590)

It's pretty much the same as so many dictionaries that deliberately omit any and all naughty words. It's so ridiculous to pretend these words don't exist, are not used and / or no one does ever need to look them up.

I mean, come on, three minutes on a busy street in the UK, you're going to hear the C-word. How are you going to know what that less-than-friendly that taxi driver tried to say, ask the hotel receptionist??

Re:Hmm... what to do... (4, Funny)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447436)

If kids are at the point where they're looking up "autofellatio" on the Internet, then it's time for their parents to have a little chat with them about eggs, sperm, and how you shouldn't masturbate in your grandmothers hair.

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447064)

its that virgin killer album isn't it? no i haven't even looked i'm just guessing, i know a couple of music sites that got raided over it.

STUPIDEST FUCKING THING EVER.

Its on amazon.com for fucks sakes http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0000073NK/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1 [amazon.com]

Re:Hmm... what to do... (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447212)

I'm not a prude or anything
As most hypocrites do; you are trying to prop up your self image by using words to displace your ideology. Yes of course you are a prude, you are not only condoning censorship, but you are condoning censorship of art. Your obvious dismissal of people opposing your views (in this instance) as being "music fans" (or more specifically Heavy Metal fans) speaks volumes.

Long live MotorHead!!

Hmmm... (4, Funny)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446648)

So, are we in the midst of a Wikiwar?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446976)

No, the war in Iraq is going very slowly, not wiki at all.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447852)

I can't decide whether I'm more disgusted by blog* terms or wiki* terms, and why the format of the web page is important enough to be a part of any term discussing its content.

Naval Gazing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446670)

These are naval gazing articles. A fraud artist sues Wikipedia. They deleted the he said she said article about her while the litigation goes on. In fact, it looks like this went to deletion review and everyone agreed to get rid of it.

How is this a bad thing? How is this an expose. My god, if this is wikinews and all they talk about is bogus wiki issues, save us all.

Or that a user uploaded a bogus image, which was then deleted? How is that a bad thing.

Re:Naval Gazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446752)

Naval gazing is the practice of eagerly or studiously looking at ships.
Navel gazing is the practice of staring at bellybuttons.

Idiot.

Re:Naval Gazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446852)

I bet you're a big hit at parties.

Re:Naval Gazing (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446898)

Naval gazing is the practice of eagerly or studiously looking at ships.
Navel gazing is the practice of staring at bellybuttons.

Idiot.
An idiot is a person who cannot distinguish figurative language from literal language.

Re:Naval Gazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447450)

Naval gazing is the practice of eagerly or studiously looking at ships.
Navel gazing is the practice of staring at bellybuttons.

Idiot.
An idiot is a person who cannot distinguish figurative language from literal language.
Whereas a moron would be someone who can't even understand when it's being pointed out to them that the word used does not fit the figurative purpose? Try again. Read slowly. Naval gazing is looking at ships. Navel gazing is looking at your bellybutton, or figuratively obsessive self contemplation. Try again. Naval means something different to navel. Ask a friend to help if you still can't follow.

Re:Naval Gazing (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447546)

Naval gazing is looking at ships. Navel gazing is looking at your bellybutton, or figuratively obsessive self contemplation.
Granted, I admit that I was wrong. No excuses. My brain! :(

ValleyWag? (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446700)

I thought ValleyWag was an online tabloid. No better than the stuff you see in the supermarket. Why should I care what they say?

This was on Ars Technica weeks ago. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446790)

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? (4, Informative)

mgoren (73073) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446804)

Could someone please point me to where the info comes from that pre-publication editing broadly affects CDA 230 immunity? I know that significant pre-publication editing of specific user-generated comments / submissions could affect immunity related to those comments / submissions. But I was not under the impression that it affects immunity as it relates to the rest of the site. Generally CDA 230 immunity is quite broad, unlike the DMCA safe harbor which relies on lack of knowledge.

in part:

CDA 230(c)(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

Wikileaks (4, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446820)

Interesting, my workplace uses the Smartfilter censorship software to keep us from, you know, doing our jobs, and just noticed this gem:

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:Wikileaks (1, Redundant)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446960)

I will disclaim beforehand; I realize that you are (probably) being sarcastic. In case you are not being sarcastic then I will tell you that the site was likely censored because of unmitigated use of keyword flagging. I deduce that the references to "child pornography" likely flagged this Web site.

I can't even access my own ISP home page through these Parental-type filters. I believe in this case it is because there is a reference to "P2P" and "file sharing" buried deep within the site. Yep censorship is bad.

Re:Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447208)

Now you have proof! Your workplace is run by SCIENTOLOGISTS! :P

Filtering nonsense (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447388)

At my job, any URL with the string "porn" in it is automatically filtered. Given my love of tech, you have no idea how many times I've hit our blockpage when trying to access a story about unpacking a new piece of tech, generically referred to as "unboxing porn."

The original controversy? (1)

LightningJim2 (1149233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446840)

Question, am I wrong in the fact that the whole "child pornography" problem on Wikipedia is the "Virign Killer" cover album, or was that the first thing that led to other discoveries?

Re:The original controversy? (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447032)

According to the article you are not wrong. Album art spurred an FBI investigation (you'd think they'd have better things to do, like trying to stop people from flying airplanes into buildings).

1. First they banded the album (cover art)
2. Then they banned digital copies of the art
3. Then they banned news articles that referenced the art
4. Then came a ban of the news articles about the banning of the art

It's a sad and Kafka-esque world in which we live.

After reading the summary... (2, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23446856)

If I see the word "wiki" one more time I'm going to hurl.

Re:After reading the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23446890)

Just for that: wikimedia ;-)

Re:After reading the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447890)

I just say this DJ and he was like wiki-wiki-wiki on his decks n everything

Re:After reading the summary... (2, Funny)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447902)

You mean you're going to WP:HURL.

From the article: (2, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447004)

From the article:

It is believed the article was deleted because it did not promote Wikimedia, although the excuse used to do so, by Wikimedia counsel Michael Godwin was that it might be defamatory.
So not only are we getting overloaded with wiki terminology, this case is also going to fall under Godwin's law!?

Re:From the article: (0, Redundant)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447576)

It must be Nazism!

Oh, crap. My bad.

wikiwars (1)

Mr6 (824590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447180)

The whole wikipedia organisation is a joke. All of the editors hate each other, you only have to read the wikipedia review to see the vitriol and bile they feel for the other editors. The best thing wikipedia could do is close down and save us all from watching this sad drama of corruption, ego and petty spite.

If not Wikipedia, then what? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447276)

The best thing wikipedia could do is close down and save us all from watching this sad drama of corruption, ego and petty spite.
Then where would we get our free encyclopedia articles? Everything 2?

Re:If not Wikipedia, then what? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447666)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

Re:wikiwars (1)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447940)

The only thing that pisses me off about the editors is that they are SO FUCKING QUICK to flag something as "vandalism", even if it's so obviously true. For this reason, the release date for the original iMac was 1997 for a few years until I tried for a SECOND TIME to change it, and bitched about the lame ass bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become.

Independent media (1)

CaptainFoo (575125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447246)

An independent media source is truly needed in todays world. I really like the approach of the Spogg website. Even though the site is still very small, something like this becoming a mainstream source for news could really change the world!

Their "instructional" video [youtube.com] sums it up pretty well.

Why do they care that much about child porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447250)

The girl's mature by now anyways.

Who Reads Wikinews? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447426)

Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable (though not as actually unreliable as either its reputation states, or probably as its corporate mass media competition). But at least its accuracy benefits from the long time in which people have to verify its content and correct it later. Most of Wikipedia's facts are about events that happened quite a while ago, so there's more time for both editing review and for other corroborative (or conflicting) sources to publish and get used in the process.

Wikinews suffers from the transient lifetime of "news". By the time the community has had a chance to verify some Wikinews content, it's probably not "news" anymore.

People probably realize this, or at least that the entire proposition of Wikinews is shaky. I've never seen a single link to a Wikinews article, or even a reference to anyone using Wikinews for anything. I've never heard anyone ever say they even read it.

Now, the corporate mass media news is awful, and of course censors (or, more usually, spins and preempts) news that's bad for its corporate owners and stakeholders. Perhaps even worse than Wikinews. But since Wikinews doesn't have the useful con of a "trustworthy anchor" staring into a camera, or just a long history of a brand name like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, more people (that is, more than 0) read and believe it.

Wikinews has probably now killed itself as a brand, and perhaps even as a model. Most people want their news stories to come from a single person or small group who they think is accountable for its accuracy (confused as its "truth"), not a collaborative effort. They want that person to persist, so they can hold their past failures against them until they're fired. News is ultimately mostly gossip, unless it's purely numerical - and practically no one wants to talk about numbers. We want something we can believe in, more than we want the facts about last night. Wikinews ain't giving us that. And since it's not even possible to wrap fish in it, its days are probably numbered.

230 Applies Even if Content is Controlled (4, Informative)

ericgoldman (1250206) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447452)

The post says "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." But this is factually inaccurate. 230 applies even if a website exercises editorial control prior to publication. See, e.g., Blumenthal v. Drudge. Eric.

Please ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23447454)

I know it's very popular these days, but can we try to go a little easy on the Big Wikimedia Conspiracy for World Domination for once, and look at facts instead?

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.

Get over yourselves already (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447472)

Personally I see nothing wrong with the CD cover but I can see how some people might be offended due to the age of the girl involved. For Wikileaks to claim that there is some big scandal going on here involving "child pornography" is just plain stupid and nothing but over-blown junior highscool drama.

False claims: pre-publication control (3, Insightful)

Frater 219 (1455) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447486)

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.

IDIOTS!!! (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23447916)

The only thing you have going for you is your user generated content. Start limiting that and you may as well become another Fox news, or other corporate lameness with no value that nobody will visit.

You're only hurting yourself, wiki.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>