Talk:Child pornography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child pornography article.
Comment The legal information presented is not authoritative, see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2003 October – 2006 July
  2. 2006 July – 2006 November

Contents

[edit] Notes that need work

Here are some bits that didn't fit anywhere: with a little more work, this could become another section in the main article.

[edit] Random notes

Law-enforcement:

  • Law-enforcement organisations (FBI, Interpol)
  • Methods of tracking child pornography users and finding actual child abusers
  • A discussion of the largest operations (such as Stardust, Blue Orchid, Operation Candyman, Operation Ore)
  • LEO successes in closing first offline and then online BBSes
  • ISPs (such as GeoCities) developed practices for instant reaction to child porn hosters (bandwidth limits, rapid reaction to abuse reports)
  • Monitoring of the Net by law-enforcement and vigilante organisations
  • A survey of psychological research about effects of child pornography
  • A section on political implications of child pornography


[edit] Please explain the removal of links to Friedman & Associates

I have added a relevant link to a relevant site, as well as expert opinion on the simulated porn aspect to the article. See diff. However an anonymous user 69.3.235.56 and user User:Doc Tropics removed these additions, describing them as "spam", "unsourced POV and linkspam". This is clearly and obviously untrue.

The following text was inserted in the "Simulated porn" section:

However, real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this apparently clear-cut decision [1]

User:Doc Tropics says it's unsourced, but it is nonsense, because that text itself is a refernce to a source! He says it's POV, but it's a sourced expert statement and thus doesn't meet the Wikipedia definition of POV. He says it's link spam, but it's a nonsensical claim, because it's a reference to a sourced statement which is directly relevant to the subject under discussion!

I also added a link section "Legal support" and a link to:

  • Ian N. Friedman & Associates works with a nationwide team of lawyers, investigators, computer experts, psychiatrists and expert witnesses to represent defendants who are charged with computer sex crimes in court across the United States.

The description was copied from the linked site. I simply don't see how a law firm working specifically with this type of cases can be irrelevant to the article, considering that they provide links to articles in law journals discussing this subject.

I would like to see the explanations for these deletions, because I simply don't understand the justification and how they may add to the quality of the article... Paranoid 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(this reply is crossposted from my talkpage. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
Hi Paranoid, I reviewed the recent edit history of Child pornography, and I'll try to address your concerns as best I can. You added the section "Legal Support" which was nothing but an advertisement for a specific lawyer. Next, you inserted two seperate links to the lawyer's webpage, along with a rather POV statement on the subject. The links clearly qualified as "spam" since they linked to a purely commercial, self-promotional site. Trying to use that site as a reference for your POV really isn't acceptable since the attorney can't be considered a reliable source...he clearly has a strong financial interest in presenting his particular POV. In short, I removed your changes because I felt that they reduced the overall quality of the article and called its reliability into question. Please note that two other editors have also reverted your changes with Edit Summaries indicating the content really isn't acceptable. If you honestly feel that your material would strengthen the article we can discuss that on its talkpage, but the way the material was originally presented simply isn't suitable to an encyclopedia. Finally, your reference to my Edit Summary as "blatantly false" seems to indicate a certain lack of good faith. My summary was clear, concise, and honest. There's no need to take a combative approach to this situation...my only personal interest is in maintianing the overall quality and credibility of WP articles, and I certainly hope we share that goal. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the good Doctor. Herostratus 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the link in Legal support was not an advertisement - no more than any other valid link to a company on wikipedia. Why do you think we need 4 web links (and not wiki links) to Law enforcement organizations and 7 links to Other investigating organizations on the page? And why not a single link to a law firm that specialises with this sort of cases? If you are concerned about this particular firm - link to a different company. I don't have any connections with this one. But it is clear to me that a link to Friedman & Associates is as relevant as a link to INHOPE - International Association of Internet Hotlines/Tiplines. Why an encyclopedic article on child porn should have a direct web link to INHOPE? And why not to Friedman & Associates?
Second, the 2 links you are talking about were 1) the link in the Legal support we discuss above and 2) a reference link as is supposed to be done in wikipedia to source a statement. The statement on the subject WAS NOT POV. The NPOV policy states: "assert facts, including facts about opinions". My second edit (which someone also reverted, not edited, also indicating a lack of good faith)
Third, the links aren't qualified as spam and your accusations are false. The site they link to is not purely self-promotional, because, among other things, it contains free original information on the topic, including articles published in professional law journals. It clearly means that the site is at least partially informational. If you feel that the attorney can't be considered a reliable source (when writing for a professional law journal) about specifics of a particular type of legal cases, I don't know who can be. But, as always, feel free to replace the statement I added about simulated porn with a better statement from a better source (official statement by SCOTUS, may be?).
Fourth, there is no reason why someone of the deleters couldn't make the change to my original edit reflecting that it's a statement about lawyer's opinion, just like I did myself. Reverting is not the best approach when editing Wikipedia.
Fifth, it is not up to individual editors to decide what is acceptable and what is not. We have Wikipedia policies and voting mechanisms in place for that. If you disagree, I can easily find two other editors who would say that YOU are unacceptable at wikipedia.
Sixth, I explained in details how your edit summary was false. If you disagree with my words, provide your counter-arguments, not just accuse me of not having good faith. I explained why my edit was sourced, why it wasn't POV and why it wasn't linkspam. Now please respond to my explanations - don't just deny me the right to call falsehood false.
I see that the comment in the article is still kept in its reworded form, which is a good thing. Now I suggest to you all that instead of continuing the bickering about particlar wordings we think whether this article should contain a link to a law firm that specialises on these cases and has information about it. And if not - why not included a law firm, but include 11 investigative organisations? What do they add to the article that a link to F&A wouldn't.
Finally, there is also an unjustified comment by User:DanB DanD in his edit summary. I am not connected to Friedman & Associates - I just found their site and added information from one of its article to this wikipedia article because of the relevance. If you feel that Friedman & Associates is not a valid example of a specialised law firm, add a different company - I don't insist it should be F&A. But seeing how there are 11 links to investigative agencies, I don't see why there shouldn't be at least 1 link to a firm that protects people accused of computer sex crimes. Paranoid 08:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you can't find more than two editors to say that I'm unacceptable at Wikipedia, you're just not trying hard enough. I piss people off every time I delete spam. There's got to be hundreds of them that would say I'm unacceptable. But I'm the strong, silent type and I'll nurse my wounded feeling in private. I'll try agan to expalin this: ANY link to a law firm is linkspam unless it is in an article that specifically relates to that firm; this doesn't. If you really feel it's necessary to the article, you could mention that some lawfirms specialize in this field...without linking to any of them.
Uh oh...I wanted to write an extensive and thought provoking commentary that would win your undying respect, but I just stopped caring. Let me put it simply for you:
  • Wikipedia is not going to be used as a clearinghouse to help degenerate scumbags hook up with shyster scumbags trying to keep goddam baby-rapers out of jail. It's not going to happen. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea for folks to calm down. Paranoid does not seem to fit the profile of a typical linkspammer (first edit Feb 2005). Having said that, I don't think the link to FA is particularly relevant. Rather I think it is too much commercial and too little content. I see no need for an example of a law firm that defends people against computer pornography charges. The second link, to the article by Ian Friedman looks, by its placement in a context of press coverage of the firm/partners, to likewise be advertising. Moreover it is cited to The Vindicator which I have been unable to pin down as a peer-reviewed law journal. From the heavy opinion and light citations, I would guess it is more of a magazine. His opinion really should not be cited as established fact. On those grounds I don't think the links should be included. Paranoid does bring up a good point: the encyclopedic value of the other links. I tend to think they are more relevent, but that should be discussed seperately. --TeaDrinker 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
TeaDrinker, thanks for being rational and reasonable when I...wasn't. I did not mean to imply that Paranoid is a linkspammer, I just generically refer to inappropriate links as "linkspam". I also don't mean to imply, in any way, that Paranoid has any ulterior motives. My extremely loud, emphatic statement was directed against a potentially grotesque misuse of wikipedia. I do appreciate both the content and tenor of your response, thank you. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw the deletion of Paranoid's material, checked the link, and definitely approved of the deletion. Paranoid, notwithstanding your impassioned argument, I don't find it convincing, and at this juncture you appear to be outnumbered, granted that numbers are not everything. A number of people watch this page, and if your arguments are convincing you may garner support. Note, however, the Wikipedia is WP:NOT intended as a place for people to go for finding assistance in any life situation, it is a scholarly encyclopedia and is intended for reference. There are further steps you can take to appeal, but it is not the time for that yet. Herostratus 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid's right about one thing - many items in the link section are non-encyclopedic. It could use a thorough culling. DanB†DanD 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with thaqt wholeheartedly. I meant to come back and do that, but I'm spread a bit thin right now. If no one else gets to it, I'll eventually try to clean it up when I have more time. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avaliablility

I don't think that we will be able to find a reliable source for the claims of availability of child pornography involving amateurs or very young children, since any source that would typically be considered "reliable" would be unwilling to confirm this in the interest of legality. Would it not be better to simply use a phrase such as "It is said that" and remove the citation needed tags? 'Net 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Those claims could be supported by reports from agencies or even even quotes from newspapers. We don't need to find a pornographer willing to make a statement (yeah, that could be tough), we could use one from the FBI or the New York Times. I haven't looked yet, but I'll bet the cites could be found. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

The archive needs to be kept on top of here. As well as the sigs. A lot of posts here were unsigned and the unsigned ones were quite old. As well a lot of old talk was missed in the last archiving. I've archived up to all but the last couple discussions and some notes I couldn't easily date.--Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childsupermodels

I believe this site was taken down as part of some latest operations in the US. I thought it used to have an article here, but I can't find it. The servers are no longer responding and I read a story about a "vague" network of sites that were taken down which contained young girls in sexually suggestive poses but not nude. It was based in Florida. Claim is being made that even without nudity it is child porn. Once more details come out it should be considered adding to the article.--Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the story here [1]--Crossmr 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChild_pornography_472f.html"