Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wikimedia's offiical blog post npr searchJinnai 05:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Two inaccuracies in this article[edit]

  1. Sanger's complaint was not specifically about lolicon, that was just one of the categories he listed. This article's singular focus on lolicon is misleading.
  2. "Sanger takes particular aim with his criticism at the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation Erik Möller for his defense of pedophilia material on Wikimedia pages." Viewing Erik's edits as "defense of pedophilia material" is purely Sanger's opinion and should be presented as such, or else deleted.

Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. That is what every reliable source I've seen talks about. The only ones that don't talk about it use the label child pornography. The image purge after is different. He does cite the paedophila category on wikimedia, but as far as I can tell all of the comments revolve around the lolicon.
    1. Anyway I went ahead and rephrased it so it should be clear what he reported.Jinnai 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I'll see about addressing that. The second independant RS does use the term defense.Jinnai 04:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The source you cite says Erik "is said to have defended the inclusion of controversial views on Wikipedia’s pedophilia page." Erik Moller himself has stated: "I have never defended pedophilia in any way. Any claims to the contrary are false and a deliberate distortion of my views."[1] So unless you intend to present both sides of the issue, this needs to be deleted as a violation of both the NPOV policy and the BLP policy. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to check to see how much Sanger really brings that point back up. I don't think its a key point, but if Sanger makes mention of this elesewhere it's probably relevant to keep and ifso, I'll add Moeller's rebuttle.Jinnai 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is extremely misleading in its use of "lolicon," a word I didn't know the meaning of when I made the FBI report, and which I'm still a little fuzzy on (I have no desire no learn more than I found out). The couching of my criticism in terms of "lolicon" amounts to defensive projection, no doubt, on behalf of the defenders of lolicon.

I did not insist on the term "child pornography" and no part of my subsequent criticism of Commons and Wikipedia rested on this particular term. In everything I wrote I was perfectly clear that my main target were obscene depictions--drawings--of children being molested, which is a category considerably broader than "lolicon," and which is explicitly against the law in the U.S. at present. --Larry Sanger (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I read/skimmed most of the article. Ridiculously biased--needs an NPOV tag on it. I immediately came under criticism? By whom? You'd think that matters. And it is, I reiterate, ridiculous to claim that I said that lolicon is child porn. I did not mention lolicon at all, except to quote the title of one Commons category. I was criticized for calling obscene drawings of child molestation child porn. If you ask me, that's silly nitpicking: both are, in any event, against the law. --Larry Sanger (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For all the footnotes, the article is still poorly researched, as it does not say much about the substance of my criticisms. It does not even link to the text of my original FBI report! [2] --Larry Sanger (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • This article is just plain awful, to be honest. Rather than focusing on the actual issue of the Commons' images and responses, the overall tone comes across as Loli-Defense. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Why would you choose to use two categories, one of which you knew nothing? It seem that one would have at least tried to look the word up before putting it in a report to the FBI...
But you are incorrect in 3 of your statements. Please try and keep to the facts here.
  • You say "I did not insist on the term "child pornography"..."
  • Your letter to the FBI "may be knowingly distributing child pornography. The clearest instances I found..."
  • You say "ridiculous to claim that I said that lolicon is child porn."
  • Your letter to the FBI said "may be knowingly distributing child pornography. The clearest instances I found (I did not want to look for long) are linked from [deleting link; it's a category about pedophilia] and [link deleted; it's a category about something called lolicon]."
I find it a little ridiculous that you did not do your research properly before throwing around accusations.
I have no vested interest in this article as I only copyedited after a request on the copyeditors page, but these spurious claims of unjust and POV content are a bit beyond the pale from someone who should know better. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The focus on lolicon really is silly, and self-evidently so, if you actually have read up on the full story, which you obviously haven't. The only reason that I cited Category:Lolicon is that, at the time I made the report to the FBI, there was a lolicon picture of a little girl about to perform fellatio. That really was an obscene depiction of child abuse. The drawing was deleted shortly after I made my report public. All of the other offending drawings that I found were in the category conveniently and accurately labelled in Commons as "Pedophilia." It's more than reasonable to refer to depictions of what is labelled as pedophilia as "child pornography."
Anyway, all of this debate and dwelling on the name of the thing is really pretty contemptible, isn't it, next to the thing itself. The point is that it is wrong, Commons has no business hosting it, and (to my shock at the time) I discovered it to be against the law in the U.S.
When I said "I did not insist on the term 'child pornography,'" I was referring to the fact that I conceded that some people don't use the term to apply to drawings, only photographs, and that I didn't really care about that phrase; what I cared (and still care) about is the fact that Commons was hosting stuff that violated the specific law that I cited. Which it did. For the relevant discussion, see [3] and it wouldn't hurt to see [4]. By the way, to all you legal geniuses out there who criticize me for not being a lawyer: two different journalists (the Fox one and the Register one) asked some actual legal experts whether the images in question might violate the statute in question, and they said that they very well might. Moreover, I was told that at press time, the FBI asked for more time before commenting to Fox on the story. Their press office was hemming and hawing. Finally, one of my Senators (the Democrat) and a Representative both reported the case to the Congressional FBI liason (the article does not say so, but merely reports that I forwarded the FBI report to my Congressmen), which they would not do if they thought it was completely frivolous. This is not an issue that those in the know were willing simply to dismiss.
The article still has the flavor of being written by a pathetic, wounded lolicon-defender. The "Sanger's relations with Wikimedia" section makes some dismissive remarks about my motives for making the report, and cannot bring itself to lay out what I quite sincerely stated were my actual motives. In another section, the article ascribed a quote to "unamed poster according to Larry Sanger"--as if you couldn't look up the original text on Slashdot, but had to make the pitiful exchange sound questionable by making it "according to" me.
Finally, I notice that there is no section in this sorry excuse for an article about the most important effect of all this--that the WMF and others have started efforts to rein in or at least label porn on Wikipedia--something you should have done years ago. --Larry Sanger (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion and salting is the best option[edit]

Hi, this article is encyclopedic navel and deletion is the best option. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Disagree The subject is clearly notable based on the sources. The article does need improvement, but there is no question to its notability. SilverserenC 17:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) that a question? You're missing a question mark. SilverserenC 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and you should know by now that disagree is plenty, of course its a question, is there a link to a specific complaint from Sanger? I think this pile of naval gazing trivia with an attack edge to it would be better deleted - we are not required to host all such educationally valueless trivia. WP:IAR - delete. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Your argument sounds remarkably similar to your opinion about Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. I think the result for this article will be much the same as it was there, showing that this is a clearly notable topic. Any "attack edge" is a content issue that can be resolved through normal editing. SilverserenC 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd support a deletion if this were to go to AfD. The event is noted with a line at History of Wikipedia#Controversies already. Perhaps a little more could but added there. But really, this article comes across as less of a factual retelling of the incident and more of a softening and PR massaging, placing quite a lot of emphasis on Wales' subsequent rebuke and the some image restoration after the commons deletion and on Sanger's "confusion" about specific CP laws and such. In fact, let's look at the entry on the lolicon article itself and the section that points here;
  • Yes, the poor layman who doesn't know what is loli and what is CP. Christ on a pogo stuck, this is the Wikipe-tan debate all over again. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan has nothing to do with this.Jinnai 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
YOU LEAVE WIKIPE-TAN OUT OF THIS! ;) (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: if your concern is about the "layman" term, that can be removed. It is still his opinion though, not a fact.Jinnai 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Everything you just said are content issues that can be resolved through editing. All of that has nothing to do with the article's notability. SilverserenC 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Notability nonsense. Its an opinionated complaint that was ignored in legal terms completely, from someone who has issues with this project - someone who is in direct competition with this project. As such its bloated navel gazing. A pig in a hat in todays media driven world could pass your, "easily satisfies WP:GNG," oft repeated mantra. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Then get the GNG changed.Jinnai 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You spectacularly miss the point; polishing a turd doesn't make it any less turd-like. There are many other policies that keep certain subjects from being Wikipedia articles; the "it is reliably sourced!" response is, as they say, weaksauce. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, well said Tarc. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1[edit]

The following renaming has been ammended for a better name.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia CommonsReporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons — lolicon is a neutral term. The term "Child pornography" listed by Sanger originally (and disputed above) is a non-neutral term that has been disputed by others. No one has disputed the images were lolicon. Changed this as its clear while lolicon images were a part and discussed, there were other drawings too.--Jinnai 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all of the images that were reported were lolicon. Furthermore, the vast majority of sources refer to the images reported as child pornography and the title of the article should reflect what the sources say. SilverserenC 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources? Nothing other than Sanger's reporting of 2 categories, one of which isn't clear what exactly was in it when Sanger reported (pedophilia is a broad term) it even suggest otherwise as the commentary either labels the images as child porn or talks about "drawn images" or lolicon. Also the term "child pornography" has been disputed. Therefore the name directly violates WP:NPOV. I'd be okay with another non-neutral term that did not use or imply child pornography.Jinnai 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
"Reporting of sexual images on Wikimedia Commons" Would that work? SilverserenC 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I would be okay with that as a compromise.Jinnai 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems more appropriate and neutral and bypasses any issue of images that are lolicon or images that were called child pornography. Using the term sexual is broad enough to cover all possibilities while also being specific enough for it to be clearly understood what the topic is referring to and still accurately reflecting the content of the sources. SilverserenC 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
"Sexual images" is way too broad and generic. Sanger's complaint, and the focus of this entire mess, was in regards to the sexualization of children hosted on the Commons. If one were to mount a drive to remove all "sexual images" on the Commons, that's easily half the database. I mean, think of all the WP:PORNBIO scrape-bys who would suddenly lose their bio pics. The horror! Tarc (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was definitely not just about Lolicon images, or about sexual images per se, but about what the article title says: Sanger's concern that Wikimedia Commons was hosting what might be viewed as child pornography. --JN466 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The current title, which is descriptive, still violated WP:NPOV which does require for such titles to worded as neutral. If you dispute going back to the original, fine, but the current is far worse.Jinnai 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
      • How about something like Wikimedia child pornography controversy? --JN466 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Again, that implies it is "child pornography" as controversy can be viewed in many ways. You may believe it is, but others have disputed that term.Jinnai 18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I think the controversy was in part about whether images like File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_29.jpg were child pornography. --JN466 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
            • It's possible. I do note that it centered on drawn images, notably lolicon, being labled as such. That's why I said I was fine with another title that didn't use lolicon, but also didn't use or imply "child pornography" by default.Jinnai 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Perhaps Wikimedia child pornography allegations might do. I offer this purely in the spirit of brainstorming. Let's discuss it for a while; I'm sure one of us will come up with a viable title. "Child pornography" was widely used in press reporting: [5] --JN466 18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
                • I think we can use something along the lines of what Sanger rephrased the term to later like Wikimedia allegations of child sexual images or Wikimedia child sexual drawing controversy.Jinnai 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • Why beat about the bush (or lack of it), give the article a title Wikimedia hosting images of children being fucked up the ass controversy that explains what it was all about. John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
                    • I lol'ed. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
                      • As I recall, child pornography as defined by US law is not restricted to photographic material. Drawings qualify. Commons hosts drawings depicting child sexual abuse and bestiality; they are quite old, but they were pornography in their day and may still be so today under US law. --JN466 03:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
                      • Actually, I was mistaken in that assertion. What I described is from the definition of "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". Child pornography is defined in Title 18 as "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
                      • (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
                      • (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
                      • (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
                      • Apologies. --JN466 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sanger's letter says, after the introductory preamble, "I believe Wikimedia Commons (,owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography". The only mention to lolicon is in reference to a redacted category ("link deleted; it's a category about something called lolicon"), which does not suggest that lolicon was the prime concern. Without knowing which category Sanger was referencing and what that category contained at the time he wrote the letter, it is impossible to know if this is related to lolicon at all, so any inclusion of that term in the title is inappropriate. Similarly, the Fox News article is entitled "Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't just base an entire article on 1 person's opinion. Other RSes have used the term lolicon. Anyway, it violated WP:NPOV and there have been other suggestions.Jinnai 02:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sanger sed the words "child pornography". He did not use the words lolicon except in reference to redacted category and it is unclear if the word "lolicon" is used at all in the original letter. If reliable sources used the word lolicon, they were not referencing Sanger's letter. This article is about his report to the FBI about child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons - in what way does the title violate WP:NPOV? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This title also falls under WP:NPOV because there have been reliable sources, including the Foundation itself, who dispute the term used. It's also about them too. And even if it wasn't, its disputed by others as noted by independant RSes. Therefore since this is a descriptive title, it needs to be as neutral as possible and that he reported child pornography when that is disputed means your moving it to this title is a direct violation of WP:NPOV#Naming specifically:
{{quote|Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed"Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
Jinnai 02:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that argument is going to get you very far here. The title is neutrally describing the event. Perhaps you have had second thoughts about creating this article in the first place? If so, I suggest you put it up for deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no second thoughts and it is describing it in a non-neutral term. If it wasn't, why were there so many disputing his terminology to the point that Sanger himself partiually recanted? It seems you are trying to push a particular POV here. I have said that I'm open for other terms that don't use the word lolicon in it.Jinnai 03:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am pushing the POV that since Larry Sanger reported to the FBI that Wikimedia Commons had has what he considered might be child pornography images, the title of the article about that event should reflect that. You, on the other hand, seem intent on making this article some sort of defense of lolicon. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"including the Foundation itself" wouldn't that be a self published source? IOW you are trying to base the title of the article NOT on the issue of the dispute but on the special pleading of one side to the dispute. John lilburne (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The title makes it appear like there is no dispute - ie everyone agrees that all the images were child porn. That is not the case and that is why its NPOV violation. It's just 1 man's opinion. Sure he is the one who submitted it, but there has been serious allegations that he used that term improperly. We are not in the business of inflating one man's opinion that is disputed into undisputed fact.Jinnai 16:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
How about Reporting of child sexual abuse images on Wikimedia Commons? --JN466 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So how many were removed and how many were kept? IIRC a year ago there were many more images in the categories than there are now. There has been a cleaning up of sorts. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The van Maele pictures at any rate all remained. I remember a lot of other, adult amateur porn disappearing; girlfriends with random plastic objects up their vaginas and such. One thing that is important here is that there wasn't actually any child pornography on Commons, in the legal sense of materials that involved a minor in their production. What there was, and still is today, is depictions of child sexual abuse as defined by section 1466A that many would feel are obscene. --JN466 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Jayen466 - that's at least a better proposed title. Not nessasarily the best phrasing. It still implies there was no dispute. I think Wikimedia child abuse image allegation is better.Jinnai 03:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone argue in good faith that the images shown on the right are not graphic images of child sexual abuse? I will delete these images off this talk page in due course and don't mind if someone else does so, but it is important that everyone participating on this talk page understand that we are not talking about a harmless manga image. --JN466 16:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Images removed. --JN466 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I would like to rephrase your interpretation of them to be "Historic artistic representations of child sexual abuse". If you want to call them that, then i'll agree. SilverserenC 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree they're historic, and by a notable artist. They are also "graphic", as defined in section 1466A. [6] --JN466 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is why the law specifically points out that, to be charged with this law, the images must "lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is quite clear that these images have artistic and historic value, so they do not fall under the other provisions of that law. SilverserenC 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right there; but they're still graphic depictions of child sexual abuse, because that simply is what they are. Historic, artistic, and graphic depictions of child sexual abuse. --JN466 16:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are. And, at the same time, they are completely within the bounds of the law. However, I think there's a bit of a difference in connotation between depictions of child sexual abuse and child pornography. Not that i'm saying the current title isn't accurate, just that Sanger is completely wrong. But I think everyone has already determined that anyways. SilverserenC 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I was suggesting Reporting of child sexual abuse images on Wikimedia Commons, because we can all agree that at least some of the images concerned were such images. The child pornography allegation was mistaken; Sanger was simply wrong about that. On the other hand, the news being what it is, and the allegation using the term "child pornography", that's the term they all picked up and ran with. --JN466 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or forum
Good grief. I'd like to see one of you too-clever-by-half naughty schoolboys actually defend the view that the images in question have serious artistic value. You merely make the assertion. I think it's abundantly clear that, despite their age (does age confer artistic merit?), they have no more artistic merit than the lolicon that some of you apparently so adore. Prove me wrong. --Larry Sanger (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
<nowki>*</nowiki>cracks knuckles* Okay, here we go. For the examples of the pictures given to the right, they are both by the artist Martin Van Maele, a renowned artist who essentially started, with his illustrations of erotic literature, the current erotic literature and artistic image movement of the 20th century (ignoring other such movements in previous centuries). Practically all of his images are erotic in nature. The two depicted here are a part of his La Grande Danse macabre des vifs series. Unless you are suggesting that we don't host any images that he has ever done, especially his main series that is considered to be full of artistic and historical value, your assertion is then incorrect. SilverserenC 05:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Larry, I am entirely sympathetic to your point of view that making this stuff available to kids in primary school is irresponsible and, really, way, waaa...aaay beyond the pale. That irresponsibility, for an educational organisation at least partly directed at kids, is truly staggering. Wikimedia should not be hosting that stuff until there is an opt-in facility for viewing adult content, especially this kind of adult content. As it is, giving uncontrolled access to this kind of material would actually result in access to Wikimedia sites being blocked by law in Germany, for example. But WMF is based in the US, not in Germany, so US law applies. Unlike virtually any other big website, such as Flickr or Google Image, Wikimedia has no facility whatever to regulate access by minors. The 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content came up with specific recommendations in that regard, which are being looked at. I certainly hope something will come of those eventually. But I would not have an objection to Wikimedia hosting this sort of stuff once there is a facility to regulate access by minors. The artist is notable. [7] Even this specific work that the illustrations are taken from has some minor notability: [8]. It's important to keep the two issues apart: one is protecting minors, the other is censorship. I am for censorship if that is what it takes to do right by minors, but against it once that is no longer a concern. --JN466 18:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any substantial arguments here at all. Silver Seren labels Martin Van Maele an "artist," and if calling him that makes whatever he produces "art," much less "significant art," then of course, the (implied) argument is question-begging. In other words, you do not get to establish that something is "significant art" by noting that it is a drawing made by someone who could be called an artist. Adding that he is a reknowned artist certainly needs evidence anyway, as does the claim that he started an "erotic literature and artistic image movement." Even if true, that also hardly substantiates anything: would a napkin doodled on by Van Gogh be art?
Let's concede that there is a category of erotic art and that such art may be "significant." Some famous nudes probably fall into this category. The question is whether the drawings in question belongs in it as well. As far as I can tell, they are merely titillating, and possibly intended to be humorous, and this would indicate that they aren't serious art. They are merely a tool for men to masturbate by. Finally, no discussion of the issue can ignore the point that the fact that these are depictions of children being molested makes them, for that very reason, much less likely to be properly considered "significant art." The fact that they are labelled with "humorous" captions makes this only more obvious.
You might well continue to disagree, but you would clearly have to be quite unreflective not to see that the matter is very, very far from being as clear-cut as you thought it was.
Jayen, thanks for your partial support, but your Google searches by themselves prove nothing whatsoever. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey SS! As book illustrations they are hardly John Tenniel, Edward Burne-Jones, Lucien Pissarro, Aubrey Beardsley, Mervyn Peake, Edmund Dulac, Phiz!, John Leech, Sidney Paget, ... If I flip through late 19th century issues of the Strand, or Pearson's I see page, after page, of better illustrations, one has to go back to 40 years earlier to Punch to see comparable stuff. The only thing that these works have is that the guy has his cock out. What makes this guy any different from the work-a-day illustrators of the period? John lilburne (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to give speeches and opinions on the nature of what Wikipedia hosts. This is about a specific issue, which I realize Sanger feels strongly about, of the reporting and coverage of images on Wikimedia Commons. This is not the place for a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of those specific images. That discussion belongs elsewhere.Jinnai 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly what the point was about: whether the images reported were child porn or wholesome family fun, and whether if obscene they were justified due to some artistic merit. The legal bar may be fairly low on art vs porn, but obscene is obscene. Besides whether they manage to limbo under the bar of obscene or not one really has to question the motivation of a supposed educational charity cosseting them. John lilburne (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No. This here is a discussion about the appropriate title for this page. This page is about a particular incident, what led to it and its aftermath. It is not a forum to be discussing whether X is child porn or not whether commons should host it or not.Jinnai 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Ah, I see your concern now. Sanger reported to the FBI that Commons "may be knowingly hosting child pornography" so the title is correct. The body of the article should make clear that not everyone agreed, but since the actual categories were redacted by Sanger in more widely publishing his letter to the FBI (presumably to avoid drawing more attention to them), any speculation as to whether or not the images fell under the legal definition of child pornography should be considered carefully. As Sanger noted on this talk page, two news organisations consulted experts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That's basically want I've been trying to say. That's why the original, before other sources made it clear there were other images than just mostly lolicon images I used the neutral term lolicon which everyone had agreed was a correct term for (what i now realize was just some of) the images.Jinnai 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that there is stuff like underage p00n on commons, photographed by the intraprendent boyfriend of the consensual girl, this is an obviously good title for this page. By the way, that guy Sigma1986 would probably be in trouble if laws where he is are not ok with his hobby. Cjgraham (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the link you are looking for. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────for those who didn't notice, I have changed the proposed move target. Given the discussions here I believe that one is neutral enough. It gets at what Sanger wanted to report without using a term that has been disputed or saying that the images for certain are or aren't since there certainly are disputes on several of them.Jinnai 01:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, editors have made comments which relate to your original proposed title, so you should not have changed the opening statement in the way you did. Please revert your change, close this and start a new section since this one is already a mess. But before you do that, figure out the difference between "child abuse" and "sexual abuse of children". If English isn't your first language, perhaps ask someone for help, because this is starting to get a bit silly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I can close this discussion, but I don't want to put this whole discussion back at the bottom of the quene for discussion again because if another suggestion comes along it will likely just keep going in circles without any real progress.Jinnai 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the move request back to what it originally was. Please start a new section or subsection with your new request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ammended requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no support for this proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Anyone else thing that "Sanger has had an antagonistic history against Wikipedia since leaving" is original research? Doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources following the statement. Kevin (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat accurate statement but WP:OR to be sure. I would say WMF has an antagonistic relationship with Larry.. but thats just my POV on the matter The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Fox News "Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI" article?[edit]

It seems more than a little strange that this article does not use the original Fox News piece "Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI" as a source, despite making reference to it several times. Instead a German-language article seems to be substituting for it. I would just go ahead and fix it, but is there some reason for not using it in the first place? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. It was mostly because I was unable to find it since it wasn't linked to or cited specifically and google searches didn't pick it up.Jinnai 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It is linked in the Techdirt article (among others). I did a Google search for "fox news sanger" and it was the second result. I'll update the article when I have a chance - unless someone else does it first. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a page in Commons listing all the press articles that appeared about the sexual content purge: --JN466 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of those are probably repeat info, but they should be checked. In addition some of those may not be RSes, but that's still a good find.Jinnai 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing neutrality templates[edit]

Seeing as it had been settled a month ago. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanger's relations with Wikimedia[edit]

Why is this section in the article and even if you argue it's relevant, why is it a subsection of "Image purge"? It just kind of comes out of the blue. Amphicoelias (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)