cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Ian Batten]

On 10 Dec 08, at 1703, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <B1428BDA9E00483388D7E2DD3E8B768F@FortyTwo>, Brian  
> Gladman <brg@gladman.plus.com> writes
>> we simply don't have a clue about where the  'naked decent/ naked  
>> indecent' line really lies for 'out of context' images.
>
> You and I might not have a clue (we can have an inkling), but do you  
> really think people who work in this field day in and day out also  
> don't have a clue?

They clearly have a lot of clue.  But the question is if that clue  
aligns with legislation.   The guy that writes the always exhaustive,  
often rather startling CAP Alert film reviews (http://www.capalert.com/capreports/index.htm 
) knows an awful lot about film, but his rating decisions are a little  
idiosyncratic.   We outsourced the definition of child abuse to some  
hospital consultants in Cleveland, and to some social workers in  
Orkney: look where that got us.

>
>
>> By the way, does the IWF list indicate the Level and Category  
>> attributed to images so that ISPs can choose the what and how to act?
>
> I think the ISPs are trying to get out of being any kind of "Judge  
> and Jury" [and indeed employing their own expensive experts], and  
> just want a "yes/no" answer from IWF.

Exactly.  And that's precisely what they did have yesterday, and don't  
have today.

ian