It looks like Wikipedia might be, finally, accepting its legal obligations.
Geoff Brigham, General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation (which is the legal owner of Wikipedia), has posted to the Foundation-l mailing list a link to a draft document described as Office of General Counsel “staff policies.” The document is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies
When I saw it, one of my first reactions was: it’s totally amazing that it has taken Wikipedia ten years to draft this document. Better late than never, though.
Note that these are proposed policies of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are described as “staff policies.” I don’t believe the average Wikipedia editor is considered “staff.” Nevertheless, the policies would seem to impact Wikipedians directly, and they essentially serve to conclude certain contentious issues in a way that is sure to upset some of the louder idiots on Wikipedia. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation would be placing the whole sordid “child pornography” mess in the ambit of “office actions.” Office actions, for those who aren’t familiar with this term of wiki-governance, are content decisions that the foundation takes without consulting or debating with the Wikipedia community. They are, in short, rare end runs around the collaborative process, rare bows to the fact that the enterprise takes place in a broader societal (especially legal) context.
In particular, the page addresses child pornography on Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons). It is worth quoting the section:
5. Child Pornography. Child pornography must be removed from the site immediately. Generally speaking, child pornography constitutes a photograph or other visual image of a child engaged is sexually explicit conduct.[3]
It is important to note that depictions such as drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings that represent children in sexually explicit conduct may run afoul of certain obscenity statutes if the depictions lack certain cultural or social value. See 18 U.S.C. 1466A.
Relevant federal statutes on child pornography – with corresponding definitions — may be found here:
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476#1
State laws may also be applicable.[4]
As soon as possible, the Office of the General Counsel or the Reader Relations unit should report any discovery of child pornography (as described above) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (800-843-5678).
Community members who find child pornography on the site may delete and report it. Community members are asked to notify Readers Relations or the Office of the General Counsel about any child pornography found on the site to ensure it is properly reported to the authorities.
Even when reporting, Community members are advised not to send images of child pornography through any means, including the email.
First let me point out that “child pornography” is the term used by the WMF–extended to include “drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings.” The text cites precisely the statute under which I reported the WMF to the FBI (18 U.S.C. 1466A), and under which, at my request, a Senator and Representative of mine referred the matter to the Congressional FBI liason. But for this, I was publicly excoriated, as you can see here and here. Nevertheless, it led to reportage in The Register and FoxNews.com and others. It also had many other indirect effects, including the appointment of a consultant, Robert Harris, to write a report about how the community should deal with “controversial content.” Also, I’m not sure that this is related, but the WMF’s counsel during the child pornography hullaballoo, Mike Godwin, left the foundation I think last fall. He had nothing but loud, blustery, and quite unprofessional contempt for my report to the FBI. It seems that Geoff Brigham, the new counsel who is apparently responsible for these “staff policies,” would not have the same reaction. If he is willing to underscore the Foundation’s commitment to 18 U.S.C. 1466A, going so far as to require staff members to report violations to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Foundation’s legal management certainly does seem to have changed for the better.
Congratulations to the WMF would be a little premature at this point, because we need to see how things will shake out–and whether the WMF will actually act on its own policies. Still, I’m feeling vindicated.
But maybe more interesting in the long run is the fact that the WMF has–as was inevitable, because it is surely the WMF’s legal obligation to do so–taken certain new powers upon itself, in a way that is possibly unprecedented. Observe a new element of Wikipedia’s governance taking shape before your eyes.
Leave a Reply