Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Publicgirluk

Publicgirluk

Sexual images spark debate

Five images uploaded by Publicgirluk led to debate over how appropriate the images were, and whether they were legal or not. In the end, the images were deleted and Publicgirluk was indefinitely blocked after Jimbo Wales suggested that she was trolling.

The images were uploaded in July and August, and were used in some of Wikipedia's articles on sexuality. However, concerns were expressed about the images. One concern was the legality of the images; to comply with United States law, including the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, "sexually explicit" images must be documented with proof that the subject of the photo was over the age of 18 when the photo was taken. The definition of "sexually explicit", and the Act itself, are vague, leading to an uncertainty over the photos.

Debate on the issue started on the administrators' incident noticeboard, but was moved to a separate page. Cyde suggested that Publicgirluk have a picture taken of herself, holding up a sign to prove that she was the person depicted in the photo. Later, Voice of All deleted four of the images on August 27. In a later post, Publicgirluk maintained that she was over 18, that the photos were of herself, and that she had permitted them to be used; but she refused to have a photo taken of herself to prove it, believing such a move insulting. As a result, she said she no longer gave permission for any of the images to be used and wished to no longer contribute to Wikipedia.

After the incident, Jimbo Wales commented on the incident, saying ""Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do.". As a result, and after further discussion on the issue, Publicgirluk was blocked indefinitely by Nandesuka. The block was removed for a short while, but reinstated by Dragons flight.

Also this week: — Everyking desysopped — Photo debate — 1,000 administrators — Board elections — Italian Wikipedia — Press coverage — News and notes — Features and admins — Technology report — Arbitration report

In this issue

5 September 2006 (all comments)

Publicgirluk

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

How do we know Publicgirluk was even female? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 16:23Z

We don't, really. Ral315 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was AGF versus IAR between those who know sexually liberated pretty females and so it all seemed perfectly reasonable versus those who for whatever reason thought a pretty girl contributing a photo her boyfriend took (one of many photos in their personal collection, not a photo taken for the purpose of contributing) of her naked face and chest (no photo showed more skin than you would see at a topless beach) with semen (contributed to illustrate our "pearl necklace" article) on her face was unlikely and could cause a major problem if the contributor was lying about being the girl in the photo. Everyone acted in accord with their differing perceptions. In the end it was better to end it by any means necessary as the debate was intractable and needed to focus on the general issues raised rather than any specific incident. And indeed, first Publicgirluk and then Jimbo, each in their own way, brought it to a closure. WAS 4.250 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still it's funny and telling how policy (besides IAR) seems less important than Jimbo's view that this really isn't what wikipedia is all about. I guess that IAR is there is funny and telling in a whole new way. I'm not sure it was the sexual images that gave rise to this though, it was more how her fan base was turning her user talk page into something that resembled myspace.--Mongreilf 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, politics and law in the U.S. more or less force wikipedia to insist on verification for a pornographic image, which i consider at least one of the images to be. A large majority of wikipedia's hosting equipment is based in the US, as well as at least 2 (not sure on the others so i wont say) of the board of directors. Because of the US presence I would side with those asking for verification of age or have the images deleted. Publicgirluk could easily have provided age proof, and should have realized that it would be required due to the 2257 law in the US. I really dislike the way that Jimbo's word is law, and that more of a discussion did not take place, but i more or less agree with the end result. I also absolutely HATE the stupid 2257 law in the US, for various reasons. The witchunt on child porn has gotten pretty bad and doesn't really deter any would be lawbreaker or child molester at all - it just drives the pornography industry, and the business that supports pornography, out of the US. --Mattarata 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to this story ...

... the images supposedly of Publicgirluk were actually of a Swedish porn actress and model with the name of Linda Lust. A quick google will find her. Proto::► 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.

Home

About