Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

Child Pornography on Wikimedia Commons

by Delicious carbuncle


Let’s be very clear about this – in my experience, the Wikimedia Foundation (who own Wikipedia and the site’s image repository, Wikimedia Commons) takes the issue of child pornography very seriously. The WMF has no tolerance for explicit images of people who are underage. This may be simply because hosting child pornography is illegal in the jurisdictions where the Wikimedia servers are, but whatever the reason, my reporting of child pornography to WMF employees has always resulted in swift and decisive action. The trouble is that Wikimedia projects are not administrated by WMF employees, they are administrated by volunteers. And some of those volunteers do not share the WMF’s concerns about hosting child pornography.

Meet Matt Buck

Matt Buck is an admin on Wikimedia Commons, where he goes by the clever pseudonym Mattbuck. He’s not the Matt Buck who is a talented illustrator, or the Matt Buck who is a bodybuilder and fitness model. He’s this Matt Buck, who is a maths PhD student at the University of Nottingham.Mattbuck is very active on Commons and one of the more prominent admins there. When someone believes an image on Commons should be deleted for some reason, they start a deletion discussion. Commons editors will discuss the rationale for deleting or keeping the image and an admin will close the discussion (and delete the image if that is the decision reached). Mattbuck is one of a group of editors who tend to appear at deletion discussions about images relating to nudity or sexuality to offer reasons why the image should be kept. Since he is an admin, Mattbuck also closes a lot of these types of discussions. Mattbuck also keeps galleries of “sexuality” and “nudity” images in his userspace, presumably so that he can spot problem images. These pages are generated by a “bot” which scans selected categories for new additions. (I was using this bot to keep track of newly added snapshots of penises — there are already well over 1,000 images of penises on Commons — but the bot owner was prompted to put a stop to that.) Why am I telling you about Mattbuck? So that when you read what follows, you will understand that Mattbuck should know better.


Nipple of left female breast of 16 year old. Bra size 38D

On 17 April 2013, a new user account with the name of (User1234567890) was created and 7 images were uploaded. One of those images caught the attention of Mattbuck, perhaps because it appeared in his aforementioned galleries. It was an image of a woman’s breast, pushed out over the top of a purple bra, with a little bit of what appears to be a soccer shirt visible at the side. It was described by the uploader as “Nipple of left female breast of 16 year old. Bra size 38D”. Instead of deleting this image immediately and asking for it to be deleted from the WMF’s servers (because “deleted” images are not actually deleted and can still be viewed by admins), Mattbuck started a deletion discussion, with the rationale of “Low quality ‘pull down your top and take a photo’ type pic”.

Does a picture of a 16 year-old’s breast count as child pornography? Should Mattbuck have considered this an illegal image? He is in England and I believe that English laws about child pornography are similar to those of the US (see Protection of Children Act 1978). I’m sure there is a case to be made that an image of a 16 year-old’s exposed breast is not covered by that law, but recall that there were 6 other pictures uploaded. They were described as “Female pubic hair of a 16 year old from the UK” or, in one case, just “16 year old pubic hair”. Each of those was a close-up shot of a vulva with fingers spreading the labia. Each appear to be of the same vulva, although taken at different times.

Before anyone suggests that Mattbuck was not aware of the other images, let me tell you that he closed his deletion request as “Kept: Sent to another DR” when another user started a deletion request for all of the images uploaded by User1234567890. So Mattbuck was aware of them. When one image by a new user is put up for discussion, the normal course of action would be to look at that user’s other uploads. I presume that Mattbuck did this.

Are images of the spread labia of a 16 year-old girl considered child pornography in England? I believe they are. Are they considered child pornography in Canada, where Rrburke (the user who started the other deletion request) resides? I believe they are. Are they considered to be child pornography in the US, where the Commons servers are? I believe they are. When I saw these images I reported them to a WMF employee (who deleted them as soon as they were able). Why did Rrburke not report these images? Why did Mattbuck not report these images?

Taiwanese People erection 17-year-old 16CM

On 15 February 2013, User:Sn890601, an account that had never previously made any uploads or edits on Commons uploaded 3 images. All were somewhat blurry images of an erect penis. Two of the images were described as “Taiwanese People erection 17-year-old 16CM”; the other as “Taiwanese People erection”. Mattbuck started deletion discussions for two of these images. In one, he wrote “Low quality penis photo of an under-18” as the reason to discuss deleting the image. So Mattbuck acknowledges that the person who uploaded the image has identified the subject as being underage. Are images of the erect penis of a 17-year-old considered child pornography in England and the US? I believe they are.

When I saw these images, I looked to see if there were any Commons admins online. Howcheng seemed to be active. Howcheng is an admin on Commons and the English-language Wikipedia, and he also has access to the private OTRS facility which is used to confirm copyright permissions and respond to user complaints. I used Common’s email facility to alert him to these images, and asked him to delete them immediately. I left a note on his talk page telling him to check his email. Although Howcheng continued to make edits on Commons, he did not delete the images or respond to my email. Are images of the erect penis of a 17 year-old considered child pornography in California where Howcheng lives? I believe they are.

When my first attempt at having these images deleted failed, I contacted a WMF employee. I also told them about Howcheng’s apparent lack of action. I made a point of asking that they tell the WMF’s legal department about Mattbuck’s action. Howcheng may not have bothered to read my email until the images had been deleted, but Mattbuck had no excuse for not deleting the images. The images were deleted almost immediately. Mattbuck and Howcheng are both still admins and, as far as I know, no one from the WMF has spoken to them about their involvement in this case. Clearly, Mattbuck has not changed how they deal with such images.

A known problem

I have reported similar underage images to Commons admins and have had them swiftly and quietly deleted, but there are only a few Commons admins that I trust to do the right thing without drawing more attention to the images. I know that if I report such images to a particular WMF employee, they will be dealt with as swiftly as that employee is able, but they are only one person. There should be an email address that is monitored 24 hour a day, 7 days a week to receive these kind of reports.

The WMF is careful not to get involved with content on its projects, because they might open themselves up to legal liability for that content. On the other hand, it would not look good if they are charged with having child pornography on their servers, so they need to take action to remove it when they are notified. What about when they are not notified? Who is keeping Wikipedia and Commons free from child pornography? Volunteers. Volunteers are supposed to bring this to the attention of admins, who then deal with it. And admins are just volunteers who have the ability to do a few more things, but no training in the law, copyright, or anything else. They can delete an image, but will they report it to the WMF? Will they report it to the police? Will they make sure the image is actually deleted from the servers or just “deleted” so that normal users can’t see it but admins can? There are over 270 admins on Commons. Some of them are under 18. In some countries, they are breaking the law by looking at some of the images on Commons, even ignoring the occasional upload of child pornography. And how would the law deal with someone viewing child pornography because they have a volunteer admin position (which doesn’t let them actually delete the images)?

In April 2010, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger wrote a letter to the FBI asking them to investigate the presence of child pornography on Commons. Fox News quoted the WMF’s response as saying:

Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.

Jack Stuef referenced Sanger’s letter in an April 2012 article on Buzzfeed entitled “Wikipedia’s Kiddie Porn Problem“. Stuef recounted his experiences identifying probable child pornography on Commons and asking for it to be deleted. Another year on and you can see that the Commons volunteer system still leaves a lot to be desired. The unpaid “editors”, “administrators” and “bureaucrats” that the WMF is proud of are people like Mattbuck, Rrburke, Howcheng, and others. The volunteers that the WMF relies on have received no training regarding child pornography legislation. Having dealt with this problem for years now, I am sure that some of them disagree with the laws and are unlikely to delete images that they feel are acceptable even if the law states they are not.

Time for Mattbuck to go

If a volunteer admin on Commons fails to act when they discover child pornography, are they not placing the WMF in legal jeopardy? Mattbuck not only fails to act, but actually exposes more people to these images by starting public deletion discussions for images which he should know are in violation of the applicable laws. For the time being I will continue to report such images to the WMF, but if there is no indication soon that they are working to address the obvious shortcomings in how uploads of child pornography are being dealt with, I will start reporting these images directly to the appropriate authorities. I am sure that they will, in turn, contact the WMF.


Image credit:   © kaex0r / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

21 comments to Child Pornography on Wikimedia Commons

  • Alison

    How can you tell if a penis image is underage? Simple – according to Commons admin Russavia, all you have to do is count the hairs on their penis and ballsack! Not making this up …. :/


    • Delicious carbuncle

      I’m not saying Russavia or Mattbuck fall into this camp, but I think some of the problem on Commons come from a view that child pornography laws are unrealistic given that people mature at different rates. I understand that argument, but the law is the law, and if you don’t want to observe the law you should stay well away from the subject. The trouble is that the people with those views seem to think that they are fighting some kind of holy war on “censorship” and can’t keep themselves from fighting it on Commons.

  • Jack Jones

    “The volunteers that the WMF relies on have received no training regarding child pornography legislation”

    “Mattbuck [a volunteer admin on Commons]….should know [these images] are in violation of the applicable laws”


    • Hersch

      I think that the appropriate conclusion to be drawn here is that a person who, as a volunteer, accepts a position of authority in a controversial area, and then fails to act in accordance with the law, is showing exceptionally poor judgement, whether in failing to acquaint himself with the applicable laws, or in defying them based on some hare-brained rationale.

      • Jack Jones

        Given the basic facts surrounding the nature of the position, it’s a highly inappropriate conclusion to make. People have no more reason to expect this Matt guy would have any better judgement or legal knowledge than the average man on the street, and certainly no more than the anonymous author of this blog post, who clearly has neither.

        • Delicious carbuncle

          Jack Jones, did you skip over the “Meet Matt Buck” paragraph wherein I explain why I think Matt Buck should know better than a randomly chosen admin? These are particular areas of interest to him. I have absolutely no doubt that he understands that these particular images are likely to be of concern. Matt Buck is welcome to claim that he is ignorant of the basic law, although I suspect that will only cause some of his previous comments to come back to haunt him.

          • Jack Jones

            Your strident beliefs notwithstanding, the actual facts you presented support only one conclusion – nobody has any reason to believe ‘Matt’ has any more knowledge or expertise in this area than anyone else, and even if he has said that he has, nobody has any reason to believe him.

        • HRIP7

          According to Wikimedia’s Terms of Use, it is up to contributors to ensure that they follow all applicable laws when contributing to Wikimedia websites, and full liability rests with the individual contributor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation.

          • Jack Jones

            I’m sure they do, although the relevance to this blog post is not clear to me, unless you are you making a criminal allegation against Matt?

  • EricBarbour

    “Your strident beliefs notwithstanding, the actual facts you presented support only one conclusion – nobody has any reason to believe ‘Matt’ has any more knowledge or expertise in this area than anyone else, and even if he has said that he has, nobody has any reason to believe him.”


  • Jack Jones

    Who knows. Did the author of this blog even attempt to get an answer from Matt before publishing? I suspect not. All I can comment on is the information he did include. I’ll leave the speculation and inference to others.

    • Delicious carbuncle

      I did not ask Matt Buck for comment. For one thing, his actions speak for himself. For another, there is a tendency on Commons for things to “disappear” when people start asking questions about them. Matt Buck is welcome to comment here if he wishes. I have no doubt that he knows about this blog post. (Jack Jones, that’s your cue to ask how I know he knows about this blog post and imply that I am merely speculating.)

      • Jack Jones

        What little actions you’ve documented here don’t tell me anything other than what I’ve already outlined.

        • Delicious carbuncle

          Jack Jones, I think reasonable people will be able to read what I have written and decide what they want to believe. Some of them might even click on the links to verify the facts I have presented. You, on the other hand, are going to have to remain unsatisfied.

  • Ross

    I’m concerned about this use of Wikipedia/Wikipedia to propagate pornography.

    Am I correct in assuming it stands in violation of Wikipedia’s goals?

    • Delicious carbuncle

      Jimmy Wales or someone from the WMF would probably give you a more nuanced answer, but, no, it is not a violation of Wikipedia’s goals.

      If you look at the WP article A Free Ride, you can watch an explicit porn film right on that page. Yes, it is very old, but this is full-on hardcore porn. That should answer your question quite conclusively.

  • Corinth

    I agree this is cause for concern, however there could be a reason Matt Buck hasn’t acted against images of 16/17 year olds.
    Whilst the definition of child pornography has recently changed in the UK – raising the age from 16 (note that) to 18 – the Age of Consent has remained the same – 16 years. I would think it possible that Matt Buck is simply working on an old definition (I remember the Sunday Sport at one time had a 16 year old topless model – classy publication that it was/is) or assuming that the Age of Consent is the same as the legal line for child pornography.
    That might be why he starts the deletion discussions – he may just be looking for advice on something he’s not (but I agree should be) sure of.
    It might cost but maybe it’s time these volunteers were actually given some real training about what is/is not the appropriate response in these situations.

    • Delicious carbuncle

      Your explanation is not implausible, but I have enough experience with Mattbuck to believe that he is well aware that it is not UK law that matters here but US law. And Mattbuck has been involved in enough discussions about questionable images to be at least passingly familiar with the basics of those laws. Take this discussion just as one example. I’m quite sure there are more.

  • Draco

    This article fails to give one plausible example of its allegations. Are we going to ban medical textbooks for having pictures of genitalia next?

    • Delicious carbuncle

      You see a direct connection between how illegal images are handled on Commons and the banning of textbooks? If you’re not already a Commons admin, you should apply.

  • The real Draco

    Hey “Draco”, or should I say Russavia?

    Scared of using your own WP name? Please don’t abuse mine. I agree with everything Delicious carbuncle has written on here. Now slink back off to Commons, if you please.