Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 7

message: I'm intrigued that a few people feel that the "how to" content is unacceptable even in the history. I think that's an inappropriate response - we don't need to wipe an article's history merely because it is not neutral. Martin 18:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we keep articles NPOV is so J. Average, reading it, gets an accurate account. Why would they search the history for inaccurate versions? It doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the material which may be added to this article is potentially much more serious. If there are moral or legal issues to hosting it, merely sending it to the history is not enough. It is still available to those most determined to find it, which simply isn't good enough. Kirun 19:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content will date quickly, being dependant on current technology and law. Legal issues are important, despite the free speech provisions of the USA, but I'd like to see a paid legal opinion on the matter prior to deleting content, given that there are GFDL issues in deleting page history. Martin 20:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is some content, such as search terms, which will not date and should not be made available, whether they are legal or not. How is the GFDL a problem?   We delete nonsense all the time, why not this? Kirun 19:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  The GFDL requires us to keep a full history - see section 4 on modification. We could delete the history, but we'd probably have to wipe the article too - we're on dodgy ground if we wipe one but not the other. With nonsense, we delete the history of the nonsense and the nonsense itself, so there's no problem there. Martin 19:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  So nuke this one and start again. Contributors can obviously merge in what they wrote themselves. Or just make sure nothing remains from the original, then get everyone's permission to remove the history. Kirun 20:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  Sounds like a lot of effort for questionable gain to me, so I'd prefer to concentrate on removing dubious "how to" material from the current version. However, if you want to create a competing version at User:Kirun/Internet child pornography, to allow the removal of the history, then by all means go ahead.  If the result is at least as good as this one, then I'll be happy to delete it and replace it with yours. Martin 20:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the requirement is only to preserve information on title, year and authors, not the actual contents of the document. So the text in the historic versions could be blanked, or a new history could be created by each author making another edit. Kirun 14:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  Well, the text in the historic versions could be blanked, but I don't have the ability to do that. You want a developer - see Wikipedia:developers. Creating a new history by having each author make an edit fails as some of them have left - notably user:Paranoid. Martin 16:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't wipe the history

message: ::: There is some content, such as search terms, which will not date and should not be made available, whether they are legal or not. How is the GFDL a problem?   We delete nonsense all the time, why not this? Kirun 19:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The GFDL requires us to keep a full history - see section 4 on modification. We could delete the history, but we'd probably have to wipe the article too - we're on dodgy ground if we wipe one but not the other. With nonsense, we delete the history of the nonsense and the nonsense itself, so there's no problem there. Martin 19:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  So nuke this one and start again. Contributors can obviously merge in what they wrote themselves. Or just make sure nothing remains from the original, then get everyone's permission to remove the history. Kirun 20:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  Sounds like a lot of effort for questionable gain to me, so I'd prefer to concentrate on removing dubious "how to" material from the current version. However, if you want to create a competing version at User:Kirun/Internet child pornography, to allow the removal of the history, then by all means go ahead.  If the result is at least as good as this one, then I'll be happy to delete it and replace it with yours. Martin 20:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the requirement is only to preserve information on title, year and authors, not the actual contents of the document. So the text in the historic versions could be blanked, or a new history could be created by each author making another edit. Kirun 14:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text:  Well, the text in the historic versions could be blanked, but I don't have the ability to do that. You want a developer - see Wikipedia:developers. Creating a new history by having each author make an edit fails as some of them have left - notably user:Paranoid. Martin 16:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Some content will not date

message: :: The GFDL requires us to keep a full history - see section 4 on modification. We could delete the history, but we'd probably have to wipe the article too - we're on dodgy ground if we wipe one but not the other. With nonsense, we delete the history of the nonsense and the nonsense itself, so there's no problem there. Martin 19:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [[GFDL]] requirements

message: ::: So nuke this one and start again. Contributors can obviously merge in what they wrote themselves. Or just make sure nothing remains from the original, then get everyone's permission to remove the history. Kirun 20:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Start from scratch

message: :: Sounds like a lot of effort for questionable gain to me, so I'd prefer to concentrate on removing dubious "how to" material from the current version. However, if you want to create a competing version at User:Kirun/Internet child pornography, to allow the removal of the history, then by all means go ahead.  If the result is at least as good as this one, then I'll be happy to delete it and replace it with yours. Martin 20:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the requirement is only to preserve information on title, year and authors, not the actual contents of the document. So the text in the historic versions could be blanked, or a new history could be created by each author making another edit. Kirun 14:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Lot of effort

message: :: Well, the text in the historic versions could be blanked, but I don't have the ability to do that. You want a developer - see Wikipedia:developers. Creating a new history by having each author make an edit fails as some of them have left - notably user:Paranoid. Martin 16:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer needed

message: I don't even see the illegality of this article. Giving you vague references to child porn is not illegal. If I said, "going on the Web could find you the ending to the Matrix: Revolutions", would you be mad at me for giving away the ending? That's essentially what is happening here. ugen64 01:31, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC) 
Wait, never mind, I just looked at the history... that is kinda... leaning toward illegal. ugen64 01:33, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
===Illegal?===
Hard to see anything illegal about even the earliest versions. The search terms become obvious enough if you try even a few basic searches for child pornography and look for common factors in the results. More likely to inform than tell someone with a serious interest in child porn something they can't quickly work out on their own. Jamesday 02:11, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Not illegal, history may be illegal

message: Hard to see anything illegal about even the earliest versions. The search terms become obvious enough if you try even a few basic searches for child pornography and look for common factors in the results. More likely to inform than tell someone with a serious interest in child porn something they can't quickly work out on their own. Jamesday 02:11, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal?