cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Nicholas Bohm]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4943FAC6.8010709@ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm
> <nbohm@ernest.net> writes
>> From what has been said on the list, and from my discussions off the
>> list, my clear impression is that as regards the issue of whether
>> something is indecent or not, IWF analysts' training teaches them what
>> police and prosecutors think on that issue.  If this reflects the
>> decisions of juries, it does so at best indirectly;  and for the reasons
>> argued by Ian Batten (with whom I entirely agree on the point), in
>> practice not many jury decisions will illuminate the question of where
>> the line is to be drawn because of the ambiguity of most unreasoned
>> verdicts.
> 
> So what would be a useful scheme to introduce more feedback into the
> system? It seems unlikely we could alter the way juries work, so that
> irrespective of the other decisions they were making they'd have to rate
> the pictures themselves.

1  It would be transparent of the IWF to explain the source of their
know-how on what is or is not indecent.

2  It would make the whole process more transparent for the IWF to
oblige ISPs to disclose when they were blocking on account of an IWF
decision.

3  These two steps would have to potential to expose the IWF to more
responses from the general public about their work.  This is likely to
provide a beneficial increase in the variety of the input they get, as
compared with the advice of the "professionals" on an issue which is
essentially about a moving target, namely current social values.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF