[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

Fri Apr 7 09:34:52 UTC 2006

On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>
> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>
> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>
> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>
> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal
materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable
third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be
deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.

Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that
are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other
countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.

However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).

Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene
it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of
an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered
to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster