Talk:ChildPorn.info

So, what is the rationale for deletion of this page, anyway? WikiIndex:Vanity wiki or WikiIndex:Prohibited content? The log is silent. Leucosticte (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A series of pages were deleted without deletion summary. I'd say that a possible reason is obvious from the title of the page. I am guessing that this was a Leucosticte wiki, but don't know that, the domain is privately registered, the host being Dreamhost, which L. uses. There could be a deletion reason, "Leucosticte wiki" and I'm only half-joking.

Policy is under discussion, and I expect that there will be a series of pages put up for undeletion, at least for review. I have the XML from one page, courtesy of the deleting administrator, but it may be much more efficient to just undelete and blank, which will then allow specific discussion.

Right now, the deletion reason does not matter. Anyone may request that the deleting administrator undelete, and response to that is up to the administrator. If an administrator refuses, then any other administrator may look and act, and if no admin is willing, the community may discuss. (Asking a lot of administrators is considered disruptive. Ask the deleting admin, and if no satisfaction, ask maybe one more, then go to the community, and I hope to make that process simpler and not disruptive.

At this point, though, we need to get some policy straight. Doing this case-by-case, given how disruptive discussions of anything involving topics like child porn can be, is a classical Bad Idea. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

lapsiporno.info

this may not be related to "childporn.info."

Wikipedia article on lapsiporno.info (which translates as childporn.info) covers a situation that I find chilling. This is not about protecting children. It's about protecting bureaucrats who don't care about protecting children, but only themselves.

According to [1]:

Out of nearly a thousand domain names that Nikki found to be on the blocking list, only a dozen seemed to contain illegal content and Nikki withheld them from the list on his website. Nikki has instead reported actual child porn websites to the police himself – only to find them still online a year later as they turned up on the police’s blacklist. Nikki has also analysed child porn distribution mechanisms and suggested methods for attacking the phenomenon, but these have fallen on deaf ears. Chasing criminals in “inaccessible” countries such as USA, UK and continental Europe might entail real work – it seems easier to just sweep the criminal activity under a carpet.

From this situation, WikiIndex should indeed be careful not to link to sites that contain any actual child pornography (which judgment can require some expertise). Key would be "link," that is, clickable links. Nor should WikiIndex be usable as a way to find illegal material. So I would see a series of measures. If nobody complains about a site containing child porn, no problem. If there is child porn on a site, at all, or marginal, we would delink. If the site is dedicated to child porn or it is more than some exception, we might not host a page at all. I.e., if we had a list of sites hosting child porn, with no links, anyone could then use it to quickly and efficiently find child porn.

(There may not be any actual wikis that are like this.)

We imagine child porn that is obviously so, but it's been demonstrated that RationalWiki users went ballistic over what was a collection of legal images, not child porn. Yes, it was a collection put together clearly to provoke that response. Hence no tears from me over their response to the troll. Poke a bear, get ripped up. Don't poke bears! Of course, he got the response he sought, and is still milking it.

The proposed WikiIndex:Prohibited content policy adequately covers this. Actual child porn is heavily illegal content, and even having viewed such content can leave a copy on one's computer, and prosecutions have happened from what was alleged to be inadvertent copying in this way. Right or wrong, current reaction to possession of child porn can be *draconian.* Authorities obtain server logs from child porn sites and track down the users. This is not something to mess around with. I would take extreme care even verifying alleged child porn. And I find it disturbing that, then, enforcement must become secret, because it's a slippery slope toward a police state. I'm not at all suggesting or favoring legalization. I'm worried about privacy and all the issues that come up when authorities have star-chamber powers. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)