Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Repulsive yet should remain, says Theresa knott

This article has tested my morals to the limit. I fund the article personally repulsive, yet I do believe in freedom of information. I'm uncomfortable about deleting it, yet I don't like the idea of keeping it either.I disagree with the notion that "No one has a legitimate interest in this subject". As a mother of teenage daughters, i think I have a legitimate interest in how pedeophilles get hold of pornography, and I belive that many other concerned citizens have a legitmate interest as well. I do not, however like the tone of the article as it stands at the moment. I am therfore in favour of a ruthless editing to make it less of a how-to and more of a "this is what they do" Theresa knott 10:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Martin opposes deletion

Having read this article a second time, I oppose deletion. However, it needs some editing. I hope that Paranoid and other Wikipedia users will co-operate to do that editing. I also hope that we'll avoid the kind of ill-informed hysterics that accompanied, for example, the Brass Eye "paedophilia special". Martin 11:14, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Someone else's agenda doesn't belong to Wikipedia

I laughed myself silly at Brass Eye. I think this should be deleted. This is not a "free speech" issue at all. Let's face it - some things simply don't belong on Wikipedia. Removal of material may make total-free-speech people uncomfortable, but they're missing an important point: Wikipedia is certainly not required to carry somebody else's message. If somebody finds it oh-so-important that pedophiles can find their fix, they should pay to host this page themselves. Kirun 19:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dialogue

Deleter: Readers don't come to an encyclopedia looking for this information. When readers see this, it will adversely affect their opinion of Wikipedia as an authoritative and serious source of information. No one has a legitimate interest in this subject.

Editer: Internet child porn and, more widely, internet paedophilia, is an important topic of debate in many countries. Laws are being created to try to stem its flow. Police undertake major operations to smash child porn rings. Discussions on free speech on the internet revolve around child porn and similar topics. We have a duty to provide such information, regardless of how it might appear to some readers.

Lots of people have a legitimate interest in this topic. There's the police. Politicians. Anyone interested in the law, justice, or the lawmaking process. Parents. Free speech advocates. Non-paedophile users of file sharing networks who do not wish to be enabling the spread of child porn. Internet service providers. Historians of the internet. Child abuse campaigners. It can be used by friends and relatives of the paedophile to uncover his activities and by LEOs to fight child porn on the Net. Etc, etc.

Deleter: Most of those people will know this information already.

Editer: So will most paedophiles. Besides, we shouldn't decide whether someone has a "legitimate interest" - that's a violation of the neutral point of view.

Deleter: Well, the topic is perhaps of borderline importance, but our articles on paedophilia, child pornography, and pornography are adequate: they provide some information on this topic already: why do we need a seperate article?

Editer: I am not interested in what is adequate, but what is ideal. Internet child porn has unique features not present in non-internet child porn, or in porn generally. Certainly there are links between these topics, but we can't do justice to internet child porn by treating it as a mere sub-topic of wider internet porn. There are critically important moral and legal differences between the two activities.

Deleter: IANAL, but this article is illegal. It is aiding and abetting a criminal act.

Editer: Also, IANAL. The US has strong protections for free speech. Wikipedia is unlikely to face legal problems hosting this material. People who edit it will need to be aware of the laws in their local jurisdiction.

Deleter: This article may be legal, but it is immoral and offensive.

Editer: Morality is relative. In any case, Wikipedia needs to take a neutral point of view: condemning a certain topic as immoral and forbidding discourse on it would not be taking a neutral point of view.

Deleter: This article has obviously been written by a paedophile and a troll.

Editer: We should allow all kinds of people to work on Wikipedia, provided that they can create articles that follow a neutral point of view, and abide by Wikipedia etiquette. This includes people who might suffer from paedophilia. In any case, it's poor etiquette to accuse people of paedophilia.

Deleter: This article is pretty much a "how to" guide on how to find porn, along with some obvious POV. It would be a LOT less controversial if phrased differently.

Editer: I agree. Let's edit this article together, and remove the stuff that expresses a point of view. Where it is "how to" we need to edit it so that it is not providing advice, but rather information. Hopefully the poster will help us do that.

Deleter: But if the article is not fixed along those lines, it should still be deleted.

Editer: Perhaps. Let us cross that bridge when we come to it.

Opinion poll

Delete:

1. Cyan 02:28, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC). The article still contains those "How-to" sections. Until those go, I'm firmly in the deletion camp.
2. Adam 06:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
3. Kirun 19:28, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
4. Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
5. 80.255 02:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
6. BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
7. RickK 06:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
8. Evil saltine 07:42, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) (it offers not much extra info except a guide for downloading it. Maybe the legality stuff and general info on where it is found (but not the how-to) can be merged into child pornography.)
9. mav 10:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
10. Kosebamse 11:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) The question of "delete versus disinfect" has been extensively debated before, but attempts at removing the "how-to" character of the whole thing have not gone very far. It it is not radically rewritten it can not stay. If we can get rid of all that "how-to" stuff, I'd say keep it.
11. Pete 17:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC) - How-to content of this nature could well be illegal in many countries, that Wikipedia has a strong user base in.
12. Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC) -- People have tried to fix this, but it just isn't happening

Edit:

1. Wik 19:42, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
2. —Eloquence 00:25, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC) (see #So edit it already below).
3. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 03:05, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC) (if you vote here, voice your view also at WP:VFD)
4. BL 02:49, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) (I skimmed over it and I couldn't find anything illegal or dubious in it so keep I guess.)
5. Keep. Wartortle 22:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
6. We can't delete a perfectly factual article on a serious topic just because the topic brings up people's emotions! Haven't we learned anything from the Inquisition, Salem, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.? I can just imagine that if Wikipedia had existed in the Renaissance people would be crying to delete an article on Galileo's model of the universe. 205.188.209.136 22:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
7. Theresa knott 11:57, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
8. Paranoid 13:56, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
9. Naming and brief decriptions of the methods which are used seems fine but not necessarily complete how-to instructions for those methods. JamesDay 01:03, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
10. It needs some destructive editing (that is, parts of the article have to go), but there are also parts that are either in the form as written, or with some rather simple editing, have a good function. If I write a biography about someone, regularly showing what a mean/good man he was, my POV gets edited out, but the biography (if on itself correct) should stay. Same thing here - remove advise and howto, keep the neutral information. There's quite a bit of that in the article. Andre Engels 07:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
11. Oliver P. 08:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) - needs editing to make it no longer a "how-to", as do all the other "how-to" articles. (No exceptions!) But that means it is a page needing attention, not deletion.
12. At18 12:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
13. Martin 19:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
14. Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
15. JDR (delete if not copyedited)
16. Bmills 10:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC) -- Remove the how-to stuff: currently reads like a POV article encouraging illegal activities
17. Marshman 23:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC) -- Could use some editing

Edit and keep, but delete history:

1. Andy Mabbett 11:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
2. ChrisG 15:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do not wish to get involved and/or don't care:

1. Vancouverguy 00:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)