Wikimedia Scrambles to Fight Child Pornography Claims

slfisher 0 Tallied Votes 544 Views Share

In response to from cofounder Larry Sanger that Wikimedia is harboring images of child pornography, founder Jimmy Wales has gone on a search-and-destroy mission against pornographic images in the company's family of websites, causing an outcry about his heavy handedness and resulting in his giving up some privileges to delete further content.

The images in question were not in Wikipedia per se, but in the Wikimedia Commons, an online repository of free-use images, sound and other media files.

Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believed violate federal obscenity law, according to an article on Fox News. "When Sanger’s research led him to graphic images of children, he looked up the law and realized that under the obscenity statute he’d homed in on, a person who sees obscene renderings of child abuse and does not report them to authorities is as culpable as the person who actually distributes the obscene content," the Fox story said.

Fox News went on to contact some of the high profile donors to the Wikimedia Foundation, the encyclopedia’s parent company, asking if they had any knowledge about Sanger’s claims, according to an article in the Telegraph. That action has brought criticism onto Fox News, claiming that the network has crossed the line from news to advocacy.

The Wikimedia Foundation was quick to defend itself against the charges. "In the weeks since Sanger’s published allegations, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been contacted by the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency with regard to allegedly illegal content on any Wikimedia projects," the company said.

However, after that, Wales went onto the Commons and started deleting images, which created its own controversy among Wikimedia users.

"We cannot be a free encyclopedia if we delete files to make Fox happy," commented one user. "It's intellectual corruption."

Wales defended his action on his Wikimedia talk . "We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about it," he said. "Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen."

Dani AI

Generated

laid out the basic timeline correctly: the concern originated with Larry Sanger’s public letter/report about images on Wikimedia Commons (not the Wikipedia article namespace), and the resulting media coverage provoked a rapid cleanup effort on Commons that included deletions by Jimmy Wales and a later voluntary reduction of some of his technical privileges while the community argued over scope and process. (larrysanger.org)

A legal clarification that matters here: two different parts of Title 18 are relevant. Section 1466A targets “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children” and explicitly covers drawings, cartoons or computer‑generated images (and even notes that the depicted “minor” need not exist). Section 2252 deals with material produced using actual minors. That distinction—obscenity of depiction versus material involving real children—explains why the issue looked legally messy even before anyone reached for law enforcement. (law.cornell.edu)

Commons is explicitly scoped around freely‑licensed, educational media; whether a sexual image belongs in Commons depends on its demonstrable educational, historical or scientific value, and that assessment is community‑driven. The 2010 purge highlighted tension between rapid, founder‑led action and the Commons community’s preference for discussion and careful review; some items removed were later restored when editors judged them to have redeeming value. (commons.wikimedia.org)

Practical takeaways for anyone who finds questionable material today: do not redistribute the content; capture non‑invasive records (URLs, upload timestamps, page histories, and screenshot thumbnails) and report the file through the host’s official channels and, if it appears to involve actual children or clear illegality, to law enforcement. Be cautious about drawing legal conclusions—obscenity is context dependent—and, where risk exists, consult counsel. Note that 18 U.S.C. §1466A includes an affirmative‑defense provision for prompt, good‑faith reporting in limited possession cases. (law.cornell.edu)

’s reminder about Bomis reflects real early history: Bomis, the dot‑com that helped bankroll early Wikipedia activity, hosted adult‑oriented sections in the 1990s, and that provenance fed some of the scrutiny Wikipedia and its projects received during later controversies. (en.wikipedia.org)

webhead2 0 Newbie Poster

Wikipedia was supported by Bomis which had online pornography


problems with wikipedia
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/problems-with-wikipedia/


Wikipedophilia, Wikipedia child abuse misinformation
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/wikipedophilia-wikipedia-child-abuse-misinformation-clergy-abuse-suit/

ritual abuse pages blacklisted by wikipedia
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/ritualabuse-us-blacklisted-by-wikipedia/

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.